When did Theology Last add something to Human Knowledge?

by cofty 92 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  latinthunder

  It is secualr society that has taken the lead in opposing homophobia and mysogyny. Theology has had to adapt to changing social mores. Those factions of religion that refuse to adapt are increasingly marginalised and irrelevant. But why did the more enlightened religions need secular sources to enlighten them?

  I get the feeling that you're limiting your definition of theology to a certain religious ilk. Similar to the theory of evolution humanity's understanding of the Divine comes by way of a gradual process. That process has been in play for an extremely long time. The ancient religions are having a hard time, yes, but the one's they inspired are flourishing. There has never been a better time for spiritual groups because there is so much raw data to go from. The internet has bascially put history into the laps of the common man. They can finally take all the data and compile it for themselves. The newer religions of today (including many reformations of ancient religions) don't have near the problem of homophobia and misogyny as the older one's do. That's because, like everything else, theology is evolving.

  The experiment of Religion, powered by the evolution of theology, has given us a large amount of "not" data about God. "God is NOT a bad guy" for instance. That's an incredible epiphany because there IS reason to beleive he might have been (as you so passionately debate). Theology sets that matter straight by explaining WHY God is good, rather than bad. Like a king trying to convince his people to serve him rather than lord over them.

  The problem is that theology has always been uniquely human. Which means it comes with the potential to be misused and is not perfect. It was grossly misused to the point where some will question if it's even worth pursuing at all.

  I think this is an important theological question:

  If God could live in the modern world without knowledge of Himself, would he believe in a higher power?
• 

  garyneal

  Matt Walsh would disagree with you.

  http://themattwalshblog.com/2013/09/13/christianity-has-done-more-for-science-than-atheism-ever-could/
• 

  cofty

  Did you read Matt Walsh's article? It is so bad I think I will have to respond to it later.
• 

  garyneal

  Did you read Matt Walsh's article? It is so bad I think I will have to respond to it later.

  Yes I did, it is indeed terrible and I said as much in the comments section.
• 

  Fernando

  Google defines theism as: "Belief in the existence of a god or gods, esp. belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures."

  This unfortunately includes both religious and spiritual opposites.

  Religion has only ever impeded.

  When science was no longer controlled by religion it flourished.

  Human spirituality will also flourish when we remove it from the religious sphere and place it in the scientific where it belongs.

  Psychiatrist Stanislav Grof has for several decades done just this by advancing the cause of Transpersonal Psychology and by his "brilliant" scientific mapping or cartography of the Transpersonal domain.
• 

  Phizzy

  So, Theology has added nothing recently to human knowledge ? No one has mentioned anything that fits, on this thread.

  As Dawkins once said, studying Theology is about as sensible as studying Fairyology.
• 

  slimboyfat

  Does anyone actually study theology these days? When I was at Uni it was all biblical and religious studies, not much sign of theology proper.
• 

  tec

  I applaud Gene Robinson's attitude but, why is theology always having to play catch-up with secular society?

  I am not sure it is always having to do so... but when it does have to do so it might be because it did not understand or know God in the first place. It (theology) is by definition the study of the nature of God, right? Not the knowledge of God that comes through knowing Christ.

  So I can't really argue FOR theology; though it may help some who need such arguments perhaps... to look at Christ; and THEN, through knowing Him, they might know God. But it probably also prevents some from listening to HIM; because they are instead listening to certain scholars and philosophers, etc.

  Theism has to constantly adapt to advances in science and in social mores. When did it last say something original and useful?

  Same as above.

  Christ summed it up though, and a universal truth can be found in the golden rule; love others as yourself, friend and foe, do not repay wrong with wrong; forgive, etc. Those truths are from the beginning, and society still needs to catch up. Be that theists or atheists (though some of any 'group' have the law -of love- written upon their hearts naturally). Though it has been religion and men from 'her' who have twisted those words and used them to do the exact opposite.

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  latinthunder

  So I can't really argue FOR theology; though it may help some who need such arguments perhaps... to look at Christ; and THEN, through knowing Him, they might know God. But it probably also prevents some from listening to HIM; because they are instead listening to certain scholars and philosophers, etc.

  Yes, if only people would "look to Christ"..... whatever that means.
• 

  latinthunder

  Did you read Matt Walsh's article? It is so bad I think I will have to respond to it later.

  What's fascinating to me about that article is it's the exact opposite of your position. I disagreed with the content of the blog, but I totally agree with it's tone. Theologists need to step up because they are wrongly rolling over to professional atheists such as Cofty (look up the etymology of the word in question, Cofty, and keep your pants on). Theology is not dead as Cofty and Co would have you believe, it's very much alive and it's growing. That's why the atheists have to fight so hard, because they know what they are up against. That's why they have to send doctors and lawyers at you because they know they face a worthy opponent. If theology was as fragile as they say it is, it wouldn't be around at all, it would have died a LONG time ago. Because the materialist argument has been around as long as the theological. It's yin/yang.

  So, Theology has added nothing recently to human knowledge ? No one has mentioned anything that fits, on this thread.

  This is a common tactic, rather than discuss the topic at hand, they dismiss it off hand. They pin the blue ribbon on their shirts and pat themselves on the back as the theolgists submit further original content. They go into the debate believing they have already won it. The definition of confirmation bias. They don't really have anything original to say, but that's to be expected of people who see themselves as captives in an objective reality. In such a place, no one is truly unique.

  As Dawkins once said, studying Theology is about as sensible as studying Fairyology.

  It's funny because both are worthy academic pursuits so what he said is actually totally true. In the atheist objective reality the top scientists become the governing body and everybody just parrots what they say (sound familiar?). The whole point of setting up an objective reality at ALL would be to lord over it. Yet, that's not what God did, rather, he set up a reality where we could set up our own reality. We could make our bed and then sleep in it! He literally gave us the magic wand and people like Dawkins want to use it as kindling.