![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I think it would be clearer to say "Theology assumes the truth of at least some religious beliefs and therefore can be distinguished from..." A hundred years ago, your description would be pretty accurate, but there are many professional "theologians" who disavow any specific belief in God... --Mark Christensen
Mark is pretty correct in what he says: for example, I do not personally believe in the Norse gods (or any other come to that) but nevertheless I find a study of the pantheon to be quite fascinating. My work in this field is inherently theological, although I probably wouldn't describe it as such. sjc
I agree with Mark..ie. many people study religions and theology under Anthropology or Humanities. Perhaps your category should go under Biblical Studies 14:19, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The shift in the field can be seen in the naming of academic departments - most university departments are now called "Religious Studies" or "Departments of Religion", while seminaries retain "Theology" departments. Admittedly, there are folks in Theology Departments who 'disavow any specific belief in God,' but at least some seminaries try to practice a little quality control over their education and encourage people like that to seek work in departments of Religious Studies. --MichaelTinkler
There are three main areas of Hinduism; Shaivas, Vaishnavas and Shaktas. Vaishnava Theology, especially in its form as Krishnology, represents 300,000,000 people's religious thoughts, beliefs and questions. Below I have inserted a potential piece for the article...
Vaishnava theology has been a subject of study for many devotees, philosophers and scholars within India for centuries. In recent decades this study has also been taken on by a number of academic institutions in Europe, such as the Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies and Bhaktivedanta College. The Vaishnava scholars instrumental in this western discourse include Tamala Krishna Goswami, Hridayananda Goswami, Graham Schweig, Kenneth R. Valpey, Ravindra Svarupa dasa, Sivarama Swami, Satyaraja Dasa, and Guy Beck, among others.
The TERM "theology" has not christian origins. It's classical greek (4th century BC), it means "talking about God" used by philosophers, teachers, and poets, e. g.: Hesiod, Orpheus et al. --
_____________
Isn't the interest in "other" religions and pantheons something more akin to the meaning of "mythology?" And also, in the main page I think God should be non-gendered for all those of us who see the Deity as above/greater than gender? EvelynToseland
Is the link to anthropology a litle misleading? In context, I would expect the link to go to an article on theological discussions of human nature. In fact, this link goes to an article on anthropology as an academic discipline that is situated in either the natural sciences, social sciences, or humanities. I am not disputing theologians' right to consider something they call "anthropology;" but I doubt that most academic anthropologists would think of themselves as working in a sub-field of theology -- SR
I just added a wikilink to creationism in the theology article. The creationism article currently focuses on the controversy arising from scientific creationism, and -- as an anthropologist by training -- I am not disposed nor qualified to act as an apologist for creationism qua creationism in theology, but I am not particularly satisfied with the way that the creationism article dismisses creationism as a valid subject for theological inquiry. For more background information, please see the creationism talk page. -- NetEsq 02:14, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)
The great Wikipedia scholar and commentator recently suggested that a team of us should improve the Theology page. As I peruse the Theology page, I notice that there is not one rebuttal by scientists on the Theology page. I also notice that the immortal Larry Sanger make an early contribution to the Theology page. I notice only one gross error on the Theology page. The statement "The term theology originated in Christianity . . ." is very wrong. For Plato in the Timaeus used the term theology around 350 B.C. What would improve the Theology page? Any ideas? Rednblu 00:15, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Ironic, isn't it, that the Wikipedia theology article remains untouched by what some have referred to as the "evolutionist censors"? This speaks volumes to the fact that theology is recognized by all Wikipedians as being a legitimate topic for Wikipedia. However, when theologians attempt to contribute to Wikipedia articles that are perceived to be the province of scientists, they are all but dismissed as quickly as astrologers or Flat Earthers would be.
For me, logic and philosophy are the places where scientists and theologians can find common ground in their common quest to discover the truth, and I begin this quest at the same place where Immanuel Kant began it, Cogito ergo sum. Correct me if I am wrong, but it is from this axiomatic assumption of his own existence that Kant posits God's existence as the Creator, and I have yet to hear a convincing rebuttal to this argument. -- NetEsq 01:48, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
If anyone feels so inclined and wants to create lots of new pages, here is an available database of 13th century theologians that is available in the PD:
http://home.sandiego.edu/~macy/index.html
Each theologian contains brief bio, works and bibliography. Nice resource that would fill out a lot of names for European Middle Ages history. I did not write it but the author just requests "Please give a reference to the Guide in any published work just as you would to any other source." .. which would go under the ==Sources== header.
I intend to totally rework this page over the next few days. I spent three years studying theology, so I should be able to come up with something good! I hope to make it a series.
The general line will be to approach Theology as
1. The attempt to reconcile "Revelation" with Knowledge gained through life/experience. 2. Theology is primarily used to refer to Christian Revelation as it came to be handled under a system of thought stemming substantially from Classical Greece. 3. It is especially applicable also to Islam and Judaism 4. In a secondary sense it is applicable to other "belief systems" and religions 5. A look at Theology through history 6. Culminating in Theology issues today (e.g. Black/Gay/Pentecostal Theology) 7. Its place in the academy and real world
I hope to link this to other articles (look at how little there is on Kalam!)and create a series, perhaps under the banner of Theology, or "Religious thought". I will try and incorporate elements of the current page.
Any comments before I begin?
Cheers, -- Totalthinker 02:28, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC) Welcome to the study of " Theology?"
I think you just got a good start, please continue..cheerio! 165.21.154.109 14:14, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
In Terry Pratchett's Discworld series of novels it is shown that the gods of that world exist and have a presence simply because of people believing in them. This leads to many strange Discworld gods appearing because of the nature of what people tend to believe. Does this theory have roots in some existing theology? And if so should that be incorporated here and/or at the Discworld gods article? violet/riga (t) 13:54, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The kou 09:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)==Theology or Metaphysics?==
In order of categories, it is either Theology as under the scope of Metaphysics or vice-versa? This definitely is an issue to tackle or re-think about. We each have our prejudices, whether in beliefs or any assumptions. To be totally neutral is an impossible position, suffice to say it is still possible to start with what we assume as to what is required for the Public and general audience. According to the general understanding, it should be classified under Metaphysics and not a separate entity here. Is it possible to explain some basic understanding to the use of this word? The history of the usage of word is unclear. This is probably derived word during the lost ages in history. Presently, this word theology co notates no meaning for many people, even many believers in God. It is a category of knowledge " about God or gods". 165.21.154.114 14:03, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Wouldn't 'metaphysics' better be running along the lines of 'apologetics' than 'theology'? Theology seems to contain more dogmatic statements of its area demanding no proof, you either believe it or you don't. Metaphysics is still asking the questions, just like apologetics...ask the question, present the findings and then decide which 'theology' to embrace. The kou 09:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
So I got round to editing the page. Please help me distill the wordy sections and add to the missing content sections. I have kept almost all the old stuff. Yours, Totalthinker
Thanks Mike, I'll try a temp version. It occured to me after I changed it how much of the article was not organised and unecessary. Next time round I'll try the temp and I'd appreciate as much feedback as possible. I'm convinced we can do a better job than the present page. Totalthinker
I've noticed a quite liberal use of the quotation marks, when speaking about certain terms. My understanding is that the appropriate style for this type of thing is the use of italics rather than quotations marks. So rather than "theology", it would read theology. I started to change some of these instances, but have stopped half way through the job, as I don't know whether someone is going to come in and revert it all afterwards. What is the prevailing opinion on this? -- Randolph 04:03, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Theology cannot be based on reason, as its hypotheses are not falsifiable (Popper) and it is dogmatic, pretending to be in the posession of the absolute truth. Only science is based on reason. User:Arado
I dont think that Theology should be part of the Philosophy series. Please could anyone involved state the reason why it has been moved into this? Lets have a debate!
My reasons for objecting are;
1. Treaditionally Theology has been distinguished quite sharply (within the academy) from Philosophy; Philosophy was said to be the Handmaiden of Theology, meaning that as the Queen of the sciences Theology had need for Philosophy in order to explore its subject matter correctly.
2. Modern Philosophers would not commonly hold Theology to be a part of Philosophy.
3. "Philosophy of Religion" is the correct subject to include in a Philosophy series, not Theology.
4. Theology ought to have a seperate subject series; theology has traditionally been Christian, but similar analytical studies within religious traditions have arisen, notably Kalam in Islam and Rabbinical thought in Judaism.
5. Since there is already a Christian Theology article which is OK, and since the current Theology article is pretty bad, the Theology page ought to be turned into a brief summary of the term's special association with Christian Theology but also include links to those areas that are usually misnamed Theology within other religions (Kalam, Rabbinical thought, Hindu and Buddhist "Theology").
6. There also ought to be a section about how Theology differs from Comparative Religion and Philosophy of Religion, the two main schools of thought that have grown out of it as the Academy became more secularised in the nineteenth century.
So what do you say?!
-- Totalthinker 09:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I have some problems with the new section 'A brief history of theologies'; I originally cut it (which was the wrong thing to do, I realise) because I didn't have the time to write a new version - but it's now back in.
Problems include: (i) I think we need something more on Hellenistic theology, beyond the description of the problems it bequeathed to later Christian theology.
(ii) In general, I worry that the discussion of Hellenistic theology is too schematic and selective.
(iii) Pre-Christian Jewish theology is not exhausted by Hellenistic strands of thinking, unless you define 'theology' very narrowly.
(iv) The section on pre-Christian jewish theology should not discuss post-70 developments - so some rearrangement is needed.
(v) To describe Patristic theology simply as 'certain men concern[ing] themselves with determining the degree to which the Christian faith could be accommodated to Hellenistic thought' is perhaps too reductive to be of any use.
(vi) The implication that Trinitarian and Christological doctrine were understood at the time to be philosophically illogical is, I think, misleading.
(vii) It is too simple to say that monasticism became more ascetic after the collapse of the (Western) Roman Empire - but there probably isn't space here to do justice to the topic of monasticism.
(viii) To dismiss the whole of Byzantine and Orthodox theology as 'influenced by speculative neo-Platonism' is, I think, unfair.
(ix) The comments on Islam are far, far too brief; we need some Islamic specialists to make sure this whole section does justice to Islam as much as Christianity.
(x) Similarly with High Medieval Theology. I'm not convinced that the main or only thing going on was a combination of 'dark age' monasticism and Hellenism.
(xi) The renaissance is not exhausted by what it contributed to the Reformation; and the Reformation should have a section of its own, surely?
(xii) The counter-reformation is not restricted to strands influenced by the Jesuits, and did not simply derive its theology from Trent;
(xiii) Deism gets going quite strongly before the nineteenth century.
(xiv) The discussion of nineteenth century developments and the rise of liberalism needs to include reference to German Idealism;
(xv) It is a deeply contentious issue whether 'Neo-Orthodoxy' is post-modern; it is even more deeply contentious whether it is a well-formed category at all: Bultmann and Barth, for instance, are now recognised to be poles apart.
(xvi) I'm not sure that Barth's dialectical theology has that much to do with existentialism.
In general, we need some help from the wider Wiki community to make sure that full justice is done to Catholic and Orthodox Christian theology, and to other religious traditions, where they are widely regarded as possessing 'theologies'.
-- mah 10:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC) - revised 9 November
OK, some good points, I appreciate your critical eye. But come on! Surely adding some kind of brief run down of the history of Theology is necesary to give people a perspective on Theology.
If I have made some errors then please correct them; if I have oversimplified subjects, then please forgive me and graciously rephrase/rework the sentences/paragraphs etc. But don't just delete the whole thing!
Moreover, why do you have to be so schathing in your comments? Calm down a little! Yes, I am the result of a western protestant undergraduate course (though I have graduated) but who are you? Seems the only thing you can do is disagree. I am sure you can do more than that.
The main problem seems to be that I have attempted to give an overview of some of the main things in Theological history as I see them, and not as you would. My selection is therefore, according to you, POV. I would be happy if you were to edit this so that it became more "Objective". Moreover, I do not think my current selection is misleading at all.
I still hold that, even with errors of over simplification, the History of Theologies section improves the page. I am therefore re posting the history theologies section and will continue to do so until you edit it to your approval. -- Totalthinker 05:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Mahigton, apology accepted. I would really appreciate your help with the summary; many of your remarks were very pertinent! I shall start by trying to edit the history in view of your remarks and perhaps you could add some topics that I have missed out. In particular I know very little about the hisory of Eastern Orthodox Theology. Thanks again, and looking forward to working with you.
Bravo Mahigton! The new work on Hellenistic/Greek Theology is really good. Hopefully others will help us with the other sections. Please feel free to change "illogical" comment on trinity and existentialism on Barth etc. I dont have much time right now so I haven't been able to change them. -- Totalthinker 17:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
What should the division of labour be between the brief history of theologies section on this page, the history of theology page, and the pages on individual periods - patristic theology, medieval theology etc? -- mah 15:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the divisions of labour concept. I did particularly well in patrisitics and reformation examinations but know nearly nothing about mystical theology! i think we ought seriously to think about how the "Christian theology" article is related to "Theology" and also how these pages are to differ from the church history pages. To this end I have been stuudying the content of the better regarded hitories of theology. A case in point is the distinction between synergists and monergists in 16th century protestantism. This is part of church history but I think would be better dealt with on a theology page. Any thoughts? -- Totalthinker 01:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry - by 'division of labour', I simply meant to ask which bits of information should go on which page. At the moment, the 'history of theology' page offers a very brief overview of the main periods of Christian theology, whereas this page has a more detailed description of periods of Christian and other theology. I wonder if this should be reversed, so that on this page we simply have a list of headings/links to discussions elsewhere (classical Greek theology, jewish theology, and so on), whereas the history of theology page could contain the fuller description? -- mah 10:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree. --
Totalthinker
14:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
If a theologian has a moment to spare, might they look at vaccination and anti-vaccinationist? historical references to "against the will of god" and "on grounds of pre-destination" It may be as much church history - there are assertions about catholic and protestant churches, as well as god's will, but I wonder if a note on the thinking informing anti-vaccinationist religions, and the theologiccal view of vaccination/immunisation and the larger religions might inform the debate, if not the current debaters. Midgley 17:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Is there an archaic word, such as "godlore" ore "godwit", to have designed theology? - Waelsch 18:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
User:Mahigton wrote some points, to which Im responding. -Stevertigo
It seems to me that overall you are making a very serious point, which does need to be explicitly explored and debated in the body of the article. Forgive me if I'm misrepresenting you, but what you are saying seems to me to amout to something like this:
Am I anywhere close? If so, maybe the Lede should simply contain a statement that there are debates about the extent to which the very idea of theology is inherently secularising - and then have a section of the body of the article exploring this in detail? -- mah 22:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, Here are a few reasons why I think that your additions to the Theology page are absolutely awful!
1. You claim that we do not want to make the page for novices is fair enough, but in replacing a clear succinct definition arrived at by a collaboration of editors with a wordy confused definition you simply make the article nonsense. I studied Theology for three years and have spoken English all my life, but sorry, I do not understand what this sentence means; "Theology refers to discourse concerning religion, spirituality, God, and other religious topics, that attempts to be reconciled with both the language and concepts of belief as well as those of reason and rationality (cf. Western empiricism)." I can guess what it might mean, I can guess several different meanings. Heaven help those from a non western background you seek to help.
2. What is all this about "secular terms should in no way be construed as being partisan". Of course its partisan! Even your concept of "secular" is up for grabs. The best way to approach this is surely to simply describe movements and ideas in the way their proponents and opponents describe them and allow the reader to draw an informed decision on the basis of their (the reader's) presuppositions. It seems to me that religious people are generally better at this than "Secular" people. But that's another argument. You have persisted in describing Theology from your particular viewpoint rather than allowing a variety of viewpoints come through. For example, it is not a fact, not even a commonly held opinion in Europe, that "Religious topics" is a separate category. Nor is it the case that most people engaged in Theology would agree that it is "within the context of emerging rational thought". What is emerging rational thought? What do you mean by this? Many protestants like myself would not agree that rational thought is emerging. Rather, rational thought (IMHO) is totally depraved.
3. You appear to have a(n American) chip on your shoulder about the church and the state that has nothing to do with much Theology in the Uk at least and probably most of Europe. It is simply not true that Theology in the UK is necessarily tied to Evangelism or ordination, though to be fair you lede does not make this claim explicit.
4. I'm sorry, what does this mean; "As such, "theology" may refer simply to religious interpretation which is more logos and ethos-based and less pathos-based than either ministry or prophesy." Again, I can guess, but it may mean many different and opposing things! There are, however, some good points raised in the second paragraph of your lede, but I still think they would be better introduced later and more succinctly.
Its great you're making a contribution to the page... but when I have time I will revert the page to what it was before you started unless you can make a better version, because what is there is a regression. Have to be honest! PS I don't think that the Mencken quote is at all helpful, except in explaining your lede!
-- Totalthinker 23:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I see, so...
Thanks, from America. - Ste| vertigo 03:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've just done a rewrite of the Lede. I've moved most of Ste|vertigo's points into the body of the article, and rephrased them; he will have to be the judge of whether I've missed anything important. I've added a new subsction on 'controversy' which, though not part of the lede, will provide an guide to some of the important issues Ste|vertigo raised, and indicate where in the remainder of the article more detail can be found. I've taken Totalthinker's points on board as much as possible, and tried to use more neutral language and clearer NPOV. I don't for a moment imagine I'll have made both of you happy, though! -- mah 11:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Ste| vertigo 01:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, let's do this in detail again.
You commented on my revisions:
-- mah 09:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Points
Mah | SV |
---|---|
Theology (
Greek θεος, theos, "God", + λογος, logos, "word" or "reason") is reasoned
discourse concerning
religion,
spirituality and
God. Theologians attempt to use rational analysis and argument to discuss, interpret, and teach on any of a myriad a
religious topics. Theology might be undertaken simply to help the theologian understand more truly his or her own religious tradition or another religious tradition, or to facilitate comparisons between traditions, or with a view to the preservation or reform of a particular tradition, or to assist in the propagation of a tradition, or to apply the resources of a tradition to some present situation or need, or for a variety of other reasons.
|
Theology (
Greek θεος, theos, "God", + λογος, logos, "word" or "reason") refers to
discourse concerning
religion,
spirituality,
God, and
related topics, that attempts to be reconciled with the langage and concepts of both
belief and
reason (cf.
rationality, Western
empiricism).
Though cultures and systems vary, the purpose of theology has largely been the
continuity of such discourse within the context of emerging rational thought, language, social modernisation, and revolutions in government —all of which have consistently moved away from
theocracy and
monarchy toward
secularism and
democracy.
The very concept of "theology" itself arguably represents an influence of Western secular values upon the religious world, and thus often simply refers to
religious education in accordance with Western social and academic norms.
Within the "theological" framework, student theologians may engage in extra-traditional religious discourse and navigate many of the
sectarian and
denominational and doctrinal (ie.
dogmatic) differences, while remaining as faithful
believers in their respective traditions.
|
If a few more of the words were linked I would prefer Mah's version. -- Totalthinker 19:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
This section is tagged as needing a cleanup. I have added {{ cleanup-merge}}.
None of this section makes much sense to me, and each paragraph refers to other parts of the article. I say we should delete the entire section. The section heading leads one to expect discussion of controversial issues in theology, but they should be elsewhere
I'm the original author of this section, but more than happy to see it go. It was created as a response to my debate with Ste|vertigo (see above). I had removed some of descriptions of or allusions to controversial matters from the lede and placed discussion of them into the body of the article; he felt that amounted to hiding or demoting these difficult issues. As a compromise I wrote this section and placed it at the top of the main body of the article, simply to draw attention to the discussion of the relevant controversial issues scattered throughout the article.-- mahigton 08:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Theology/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Could use formal references section. Badbilltucker 21:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 21:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I think it would be clearer to say "Theology assumes the truth of at least some religious beliefs and therefore can be distinguished from..." A hundred years ago, your description would be pretty accurate, but there are many professional "theologians" who disavow any specific belief in God... --Mark Christensen
Mark is pretty correct in what he says: for example, I do not personally believe in the Norse gods (or any other come to that) but nevertheless I find a study of the pantheon to be quite fascinating. My work in this field is inherently theological, although I probably wouldn't describe it as such. sjc
I agree with Mark..ie. many people study religions and theology under Anthropology or Humanities. Perhaps your category should go under Biblical Studies 14:19, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The shift in the field can be seen in the naming of academic departments - most university departments are now called "Religious Studies" or "Departments of Religion", while seminaries retain "Theology" departments. Admittedly, there are folks in Theology Departments who 'disavow any specific belief in God,' but at least some seminaries try to practice a little quality control over their education and encourage people like that to seek work in departments of Religious Studies. --MichaelTinkler
There are three main areas of Hinduism; Shaivas, Vaishnavas and Shaktas. Vaishnava Theology, especially in its form as Krishnology, represents 300,000,000 people's religious thoughts, beliefs and questions. Below I have inserted a potential piece for the article...
Vaishnava theology has been a subject of study for many devotees, philosophers and scholars within India for centuries. In recent decades this study has also been taken on by a number of academic institutions in Europe, such as the Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies and Bhaktivedanta College. The Vaishnava scholars instrumental in this western discourse include Tamala Krishna Goswami, Hridayananda Goswami, Graham Schweig, Kenneth R. Valpey, Ravindra Svarupa dasa, Sivarama Swami, Satyaraja Dasa, and Guy Beck, among others.
The TERM "theology" has not christian origins. It's classical greek (4th century BC), it means "talking about God" used by philosophers, teachers, and poets, e. g.: Hesiod, Orpheus et al. --
_____________
Isn't the interest in "other" religions and pantheons something more akin to the meaning of "mythology?" And also, in the main page I think God should be non-gendered for all those of us who see the Deity as above/greater than gender? EvelynToseland
Is the link to anthropology a litle misleading? In context, I would expect the link to go to an article on theological discussions of human nature. In fact, this link goes to an article on anthropology as an academic discipline that is situated in either the natural sciences, social sciences, or humanities. I am not disputing theologians' right to consider something they call "anthropology;" but I doubt that most academic anthropologists would think of themselves as working in a sub-field of theology -- SR
I just added a wikilink to creationism in the theology article. The creationism article currently focuses on the controversy arising from scientific creationism, and -- as an anthropologist by training -- I am not disposed nor qualified to act as an apologist for creationism qua creationism in theology, but I am not particularly satisfied with the way that the creationism article dismisses creationism as a valid subject for theological inquiry. For more background information, please see the creationism talk page. -- NetEsq 02:14, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)
The great Wikipedia scholar and commentator recently suggested that a team of us should improve the Theology page. As I peruse the Theology page, I notice that there is not one rebuttal by scientists on the Theology page. I also notice that the immortal Larry Sanger make an early contribution to the Theology page. I notice only one gross error on the Theology page. The statement "The term theology originated in Christianity . . ." is very wrong. For Plato in the Timaeus used the term theology around 350 B.C. What would improve the Theology page? Any ideas? Rednblu 00:15, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Ironic, isn't it, that the Wikipedia theology article remains untouched by what some have referred to as the "evolutionist censors"? This speaks volumes to the fact that theology is recognized by all Wikipedians as being a legitimate topic for Wikipedia. However, when theologians attempt to contribute to Wikipedia articles that are perceived to be the province of scientists, they are all but dismissed as quickly as astrologers or Flat Earthers would be.
For me, logic and philosophy are the places where scientists and theologians can find common ground in their common quest to discover the truth, and I begin this quest at the same place where Immanuel Kant began it, Cogito ergo sum. Correct me if I am wrong, but it is from this axiomatic assumption of his own existence that Kant posits God's existence as the Creator, and I have yet to hear a convincing rebuttal to this argument. -- NetEsq 01:48, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
If anyone feels so inclined and wants to create lots of new pages, here is an available database of 13th century theologians that is available in the PD:
http://home.sandiego.edu/~macy/index.html
Each theologian contains brief bio, works and bibliography. Nice resource that would fill out a lot of names for European Middle Ages history. I did not write it but the author just requests "Please give a reference to the Guide in any published work just as you would to any other source." .. which would go under the ==Sources== header.
I intend to totally rework this page over the next few days. I spent three years studying theology, so I should be able to come up with something good! I hope to make it a series.
The general line will be to approach Theology as
1. The attempt to reconcile "Revelation" with Knowledge gained through life/experience. 2. Theology is primarily used to refer to Christian Revelation as it came to be handled under a system of thought stemming substantially from Classical Greece. 3. It is especially applicable also to Islam and Judaism 4. In a secondary sense it is applicable to other "belief systems" and religions 5. A look at Theology through history 6. Culminating in Theology issues today (e.g. Black/Gay/Pentecostal Theology) 7. Its place in the academy and real world
I hope to link this to other articles (look at how little there is on Kalam!)and create a series, perhaps under the banner of Theology, or "Religious thought". I will try and incorporate elements of the current page.
Any comments before I begin?
Cheers, -- Totalthinker 02:28, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC) Welcome to the study of " Theology?"
I think you just got a good start, please continue..cheerio! 165.21.154.109 14:14, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
In Terry Pratchett's Discworld series of novels it is shown that the gods of that world exist and have a presence simply because of people believing in them. This leads to many strange Discworld gods appearing because of the nature of what people tend to believe. Does this theory have roots in some existing theology? And if so should that be incorporated here and/or at the Discworld gods article? violet/riga (t) 13:54, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The kou 09:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)==Theology or Metaphysics?==
In order of categories, it is either Theology as under the scope of Metaphysics or vice-versa? This definitely is an issue to tackle or re-think about. We each have our prejudices, whether in beliefs or any assumptions. To be totally neutral is an impossible position, suffice to say it is still possible to start with what we assume as to what is required for the Public and general audience. According to the general understanding, it should be classified under Metaphysics and not a separate entity here. Is it possible to explain some basic understanding to the use of this word? The history of the usage of word is unclear. This is probably derived word during the lost ages in history. Presently, this word theology co notates no meaning for many people, even many believers in God. It is a category of knowledge " about God or gods". 165.21.154.114 14:03, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Wouldn't 'metaphysics' better be running along the lines of 'apologetics' than 'theology'? Theology seems to contain more dogmatic statements of its area demanding no proof, you either believe it or you don't. Metaphysics is still asking the questions, just like apologetics...ask the question, present the findings and then decide which 'theology' to embrace. The kou 09:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
So I got round to editing the page. Please help me distill the wordy sections and add to the missing content sections. I have kept almost all the old stuff. Yours, Totalthinker
Thanks Mike, I'll try a temp version. It occured to me after I changed it how much of the article was not organised and unecessary. Next time round I'll try the temp and I'd appreciate as much feedback as possible. I'm convinced we can do a better job than the present page. Totalthinker
I've noticed a quite liberal use of the quotation marks, when speaking about certain terms. My understanding is that the appropriate style for this type of thing is the use of italics rather than quotations marks. So rather than "theology", it would read theology. I started to change some of these instances, but have stopped half way through the job, as I don't know whether someone is going to come in and revert it all afterwards. What is the prevailing opinion on this? -- Randolph 04:03, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Theology cannot be based on reason, as its hypotheses are not falsifiable (Popper) and it is dogmatic, pretending to be in the posession of the absolute truth. Only science is based on reason. User:Arado
I dont think that Theology should be part of the Philosophy series. Please could anyone involved state the reason why it has been moved into this? Lets have a debate!
My reasons for objecting are;
1. Treaditionally Theology has been distinguished quite sharply (within the academy) from Philosophy; Philosophy was said to be the Handmaiden of Theology, meaning that as the Queen of the sciences Theology had need for Philosophy in order to explore its subject matter correctly.
2. Modern Philosophers would not commonly hold Theology to be a part of Philosophy.
3. "Philosophy of Religion" is the correct subject to include in a Philosophy series, not Theology.
4. Theology ought to have a seperate subject series; theology has traditionally been Christian, but similar analytical studies within religious traditions have arisen, notably Kalam in Islam and Rabbinical thought in Judaism.
5. Since there is already a Christian Theology article which is OK, and since the current Theology article is pretty bad, the Theology page ought to be turned into a brief summary of the term's special association with Christian Theology but also include links to those areas that are usually misnamed Theology within other religions (Kalam, Rabbinical thought, Hindu and Buddhist "Theology").
6. There also ought to be a section about how Theology differs from Comparative Religion and Philosophy of Religion, the two main schools of thought that have grown out of it as the Academy became more secularised in the nineteenth century.
So what do you say?!
-- Totalthinker 09:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I have some problems with the new section 'A brief history of theologies'; I originally cut it (which was the wrong thing to do, I realise) because I didn't have the time to write a new version - but it's now back in.
Problems include: (i) I think we need something more on Hellenistic theology, beyond the description of the problems it bequeathed to later Christian theology.
(ii) In general, I worry that the discussion of Hellenistic theology is too schematic and selective.
(iii) Pre-Christian Jewish theology is not exhausted by Hellenistic strands of thinking, unless you define 'theology' very narrowly.
(iv) The section on pre-Christian jewish theology should not discuss post-70 developments - so some rearrangement is needed.
(v) To describe Patristic theology simply as 'certain men concern[ing] themselves with determining the degree to which the Christian faith could be accommodated to Hellenistic thought' is perhaps too reductive to be of any use.
(vi) The implication that Trinitarian and Christological doctrine were understood at the time to be philosophically illogical is, I think, misleading.
(vii) It is too simple to say that monasticism became more ascetic after the collapse of the (Western) Roman Empire - but there probably isn't space here to do justice to the topic of monasticism.
(viii) To dismiss the whole of Byzantine and Orthodox theology as 'influenced by speculative neo-Platonism' is, I think, unfair.
(ix) The comments on Islam are far, far too brief; we need some Islamic specialists to make sure this whole section does justice to Islam as much as Christianity.
(x) Similarly with High Medieval Theology. I'm not convinced that the main or only thing going on was a combination of 'dark age' monasticism and Hellenism.
(xi) The renaissance is not exhausted by what it contributed to the Reformation; and the Reformation should have a section of its own, surely?
(xii) The counter-reformation is not restricted to strands influenced by the Jesuits, and did not simply derive its theology from Trent;
(xiii) Deism gets going quite strongly before the nineteenth century.
(xiv) The discussion of nineteenth century developments and the rise of liberalism needs to include reference to German Idealism;
(xv) It is a deeply contentious issue whether 'Neo-Orthodoxy' is post-modern; it is even more deeply contentious whether it is a well-formed category at all: Bultmann and Barth, for instance, are now recognised to be poles apart.
(xvi) I'm not sure that Barth's dialectical theology has that much to do with existentialism.
In general, we need some help from the wider Wiki community to make sure that full justice is done to Catholic and Orthodox Christian theology, and to other religious traditions, where they are widely regarded as possessing 'theologies'.
-- mah 10:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC) - revised 9 November
OK, some good points, I appreciate your critical eye. But come on! Surely adding some kind of brief run down of the history of Theology is necesary to give people a perspective on Theology.
If I have made some errors then please correct them; if I have oversimplified subjects, then please forgive me and graciously rephrase/rework the sentences/paragraphs etc. But don't just delete the whole thing!
Moreover, why do you have to be so schathing in your comments? Calm down a little! Yes, I am the result of a western protestant undergraduate course (though I have graduated) but who are you? Seems the only thing you can do is disagree. I am sure you can do more than that.
The main problem seems to be that I have attempted to give an overview of some of the main things in Theological history as I see them, and not as you would. My selection is therefore, according to you, POV. I would be happy if you were to edit this so that it became more "Objective". Moreover, I do not think my current selection is misleading at all.
I still hold that, even with errors of over simplification, the History of Theologies section improves the page. I am therefore re posting the history theologies section and will continue to do so until you edit it to your approval. -- Totalthinker 05:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Mahigton, apology accepted. I would really appreciate your help with the summary; many of your remarks were very pertinent! I shall start by trying to edit the history in view of your remarks and perhaps you could add some topics that I have missed out. In particular I know very little about the hisory of Eastern Orthodox Theology. Thanks again, and looking forward to working with you.
Bravo Mahigton! The new work on Hellenistic/Greek Theology is really good. Hopefully others will help us with the other sections. Please feel free to change "illogical" comment on trinity and existentialism on Barth etc. I dont have much time right now so I haven't been able to change them. -- Totalthinker 17:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
What should the division of labour be between the brief history of theologies section on this page, the history of theology page, and the pages on individual periods - patristic theology, medieval theology etc? -- mah 15:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the divisions of labour concept. I did particularly well in patrisitics and reformation examinations but know nearly nothing about mystical theology! i think we ought seriously to think about how the "Christian theology" article is related to "Theology" and also how these pages are to differ from the church history pages. To this end I have been stuudying the content of the better regarded hitories of theology. A case in point is the distinction between synergists and monergists in 16th century protestantism. This is part of church history but I think would be better dealt with on a theology page. Any thoughts? -- Totalthinker 01:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry - by 'division of labour', I simply meant to ask which bits of information should go on which page. At the moment, the 'history of theology' page offers a very brief overview of the main periods of Christian theology, whereas this page has a more detailed description of periods of Christian and other theology. I wonder if this should be reversed, so that on this page we simply have a list of headings/links to discussions elsewhere (classical Greek theology, jewish theology, and so on), whereas the history of theology page could contain the fuller description? -- mah 10:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree. --
Totalthinker
14:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
If a theologian has a moment to spare, might they look at vaccination and anti-vaccinationist? historical references to "against the will of god" and "on grounds of pre-destination" It may be as much church history - there are assertions about catholic and protestant churches, as well as god's will, but I wonder if a note on the thinking informing anti-vaccinationist religions, and the theologiccal view of vaccination/immunisation and the larger religions might inform the debate, if not the current debaters. Midgley 17:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Is there an archaic word, such as "godlore" ore "godwit", to have designed theology? - Waelsch 18:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
User:Mahigton wrote some points, to which Im responding. -Stevertigo
It seems to me that overall you are making a very serious point, which does need to be explicitly explored and debated in the body of the article. Forgive me if I'm misrepresenting you, but what you are saying seems to me to amout to something like this:
Am I anywhere close? If so, maybe the Lede should simply contain a statement that there are debates about the extent to which the very idea of theology is inherently secularising - and then have a section of the body of the article exploring this in detail? -- mah 22:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, Here are a few reasons why I think that your additions to the Theology page are absolutely awful!
1. You claim that we do not want to make the page for novices is fair enough, but in replacing a clear succinct definition arrived at by a collaboration of editors with a wordy confused definition you simply make the article nonsense. I studied Theology for three years and have spoken English all my life, but sorry, I do not understand what this sentence means; "Theology refers to discourse concerning religion, spirituality, God, and other religious topics, that attempts to be reconciled with both the language and concepts of belief as well as those of reason and rationality (cf. Western empiricism)." I can guess what it might mean, I can guess several different meanings. Heaven help those from a non western background you seek to help.
2. What is all this about "secular terms should in no way be construed as being partisan". Of course its partisan! Even your concept of "secular" is up for grabs. The best way to approach this is surely to simply describe movements and ideas in the way their proponents and opponents describe them and allow the reader to draw an informed decision on the basis of their (the reader's) presuppositions. It seems to me that religious people are generally better at this than "Secular" people. But that's another argument. You have persisted in describing Theology from your particular viewpoint rather than allowing a variety of viewpoints come through. For example, it is not a fact, not even a commonly held opinion in Europe, that "Religious topics" is a separate category. Nor is it the case that most people engaged in Theology would agree that it is "within the context of emerging rational thought". What is emerging rational thought? What do you mean by this? Many protestants like myself would not agree that rational thought is emerging. Rather, rational thought (IMHO) is totally depraved.
3. You appear to have a(n American) chip on your shoulder about the church and the state that has nothing to do with much Theology in the Uk at least and probably most of Europe. It is simply not true that Theology in the UK is necessarily tied to Evangelism or ordination, though to be fair you lede does not make this claim explicit.
4. I'm sorry, what does this mean; "As such, "theology" may refer simply to religious interpretation which is more logos and ethos-based and less pathos-based than either ministry or prophesy." Again, I can guess, but it may mean many different and opposing things! There are, however, some good points raised in the second paragraph of your lede, but I still think they would be better introduced later and more succinctly.
Its great you're making a contribution to the page... but when I have time I will revert the page to what it was before you started unless you can make a better version, because what is there is a regression. Have to be honest! PS I don't think that the Mencken quote is at all helpful, except in explaining your lede!
-- Totalthinker 23:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I see, so...
Thanks, from America. - Ste| vertigo 03:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've just done a rewrite of the Lede. I've moved most of Ste|vertigo's points into the body of the article, and rephrased them; he will have to be the judge of whether I've missed anything important. I've added a new subsction on 'controversy' which, though not part of the lede, will provide an guide to some of the important issues Ste|vertigo raised, and indicate where in the remainder of the article more detail can be found. I've taken Totalthinker's points on board as much as possible, and tried to use more neutral language and clearer NPOV. I don't for a moment imagine I'll have made both of you happy, though! -- mah 11:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Ste| vertigo 01:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, let's do this in detail again.
You commented on my revisions:
-- mah 09:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Points
Mah | SV |
---|---|
Theology (
Greek θεος, theos, "God", + λογος, logos, "word" or "reason") is reasoned
discourse concerning
religion,
spirituality and
God. Theologians attempt to use rational analysis and argument to discuss, interpret, and teach on any of a myriad a
religious topics. Theology might be undertaken simply to help the theologian understand more truly his or her own religious tradition or another religious tradition, or to facilitate comparisons between traditions, or with a view to the preservation or reform of a particular tradition, or to assist in the propagation of a tradition, or to apply the resources of a tradition to some present situation or need, or for a variety of other reasons.
|
Theology (
Greek θεος, theos, "God", + λογος, logos, "word" or "reason") refers to
discourse concerning
religion,
spirituality,
God, and
related topics, that attempts to be reconciled with the langage and concepts of both
belief and
reason (cf.
rationality, Western
empiricism).
Though cultures and systems vary, the purpose of theology has largely been the
continuity of such discourse within the context of emerging rational thought, language, social modernisation, and revolutions in government —all of which have consistently moved away from
theocracy and
monarchy toward
secularism and
democracy.
The very concept of "theology" itself arguably represents an influence of Western secular values upon the religious world, and thus often simply refers to
religious education in accordance with Western social and academic norms.
Within the "theological" framework, student theologians may engage in extra-traditional religious discourse and navigate many of the
sectarian and
denominational and doctrinal (ie.
dogmatic) differences, while remaining as faithful
believers in their respective traditions.
|
If a few more of the words were linked I would prefer Mah's version. -- Totalthinker 19:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
This section is tagged as needing a cleanup. I have added {{ cleanup-merge}}.
None of this section makes much sense to me, and each paragraph refers to other parts of the article. I say we should delete the entire section. The section heading leads one to expect discussion of controversial issues in theology, but they should be elsewhere
I'm the original author of this section, but more than happy to see it go. It was created as a response to my debate with Ste|vertigo (see above). I had removed some of descriptions of or allusions to controversial matters from the lede and placed discussion of them into the body of the article; he felt that amounted to hiding or demoting these difficult issues. As a compromise I wrote this section and placed it at the top of the main body of the article, simply to draw attention to the discussion of the relevant controversial issues scattered throughout the article.-- mahigton 08:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Theology/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Could use formal references section. Badbilltucker 21:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 21:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)