 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
larris
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 6/30/2004 6:48 AM (GMT -6) |   |
In another thread Dr. Boyd stated:
quote:
Yes, the issue isn't will or won't you do theology. As I tried to show, Larris is FULL of theology and is DOING a ton of theology. Anyone with an opinion (logos) of God or God-related things, and anyone who talks (logos) about God, has a THEOS -LOGOS (theology). And as Joanne notes, the only way to guard against false theology is by being intentional about your own theology.
This was in refutation to what I wrote regarding the original meaning of the word "theology", which was:
quote:
Theology is a term compounded of two Greek words, theos(God) and logos (rational utterance). The word theology first appears in Plato’s Republic (book 2 chap. 18) with reference to poetry. According to Plato norms must be prescribed to which the poetry must conform in matters of theology. In this connection theology means the telling of stories about the gods. In Aristotle’s Metaphysics (book 6 chap. 1, sect. 19), it is one of the three speculative sciences: mathematical, physical and theological.
In the West down to the time of Abelard, the term “theology” was associated with heathenism. Abelard changed the meaning of the word. For him theology was as much the study of the Christian doctrine of God displayed in Holy Scripture and the church fahters, as of the doctrines of God found in writers OUTSIDE THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH. (Encyclopedia Americana)
What I would like to say here is that BOTH Dr. Boyd and myself are correct. For there are TWO distinctly different definitions of the word THEOLOGY.
DR. Boyd, Sir, you stated:
quote:
Yes, the issue isn't will or won't you do theology. As I tried to show, Larris is FULL of theology and is DOING a ton of theology. Anyone with an opinion (logos) of God or God-related things, and anyone who talks (logos) about God, has a THEOS -LOGOS (theology). And as Joanne notes, the only way to guard against false theology is by being intentional about your own theology.
Yes Sir, that is ONE definition of the word "THEOLOGY". But it is not the ONLY definition, nor is it the ONLY one that is used here on this message board or among theologians. I respectfully say that if this were the ONLY definition, then Dr. Boyd you wasted a lot of time and money going to Yale and Princeton to get degrees in something called THEOLOGY, that any one can talk about without having ever studied theology proper. To say that any time someone is talking about God or his word it's "theology" is not the case in this sense of the word, which is it's original sense.
Dr. Boyd you said:
quote:
One more thing. Theology (at least as I understand it), is important. The wrong theology can dramatically affect your relationship with the Father, and with others. So, in that respect, this is far from a waste of time.
I agree with that statement whole heartedly according to one definition of the word as you used it. However what about the OTHER type of theology? That kind which Jo-Anne asked about? Of which just one such type is "Narrative Theology"? Which man made SYSTEM or METHODOLOGY of theology dose anyone have to learn to simply talk about God or His Word?
Your definition is what the word theology has come to mean in our culture. When I speak of THEOLOGY, I'm speaking of the very thing you went to college and got a degree in. Jo-Anne doesn't have to know one iota of any man made system of THEOLOGY to talk about the Word of God, nor do I, nor do you.
Dr. Boyd you stated:
quote:
And I don't know where you get your information about the origins of "theology," but I encourage you to stop it, or at least balance it with sources that are less THEOLOGICALLY driven.
I don't believe Sir, that you really meant to say what you just did here. For you tell me
"I don't know where you get your information about the origins of theology."
And then tell me:
"to go to sources that are LESS THEOLOGICALLY Driven".
Now wouldn't one go straight to the horses mouth to get the origins of where something came from? My original source "started" with what I gave you in my post which was written by George D. Kilpatrick, Dean Ireland's Professor of Exegesis of Holy Scripture, Oxford University, England. But here you are telling me that I am supposed to go to sources that are LESS theologically driven to find out where Theology originated from?
I am just going to assume that this is not what you meant.
Any decent and well done historically accurate history of theology will take you right back through Christianity into Greek Philosophy where what is called THEOLOGY (as in what you went to college to learn) originates from. And any decent and well done historically accurate history of PHILOSOPHY (which is what you got your B.A. in) will take you right back through Christian theology into the Philosophy of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle.
BECAUSE at the time of the first century when Paul wrote his letter to the Colossians the very THEOLOGY that you learned in college was considered the primary science within Philosophy and was the main major aspect of philosophy. Those on Mars Hill sat around only to hear or tell of some NEW thing, and their main focus was on the "GODS", because it was believed that if you tapped into the right "spirit" or "god" that god would give you some new knowledge.
Did the apostle Paul quote a few Greek prophets? Yes, but every man will speak a small bit of truth here and there. Error is always mixed with the truth to make it believable. Paul knowing the truth would know how to use some such statement to speak to his audience.
Dr. Boyd you said:
quote:
Socrates and Plato and Aristotle were reflecting on the wild anthropomorphic things popular texts (like Homer... ever read it?) say about the gods. They weren't trying to "deceive" people but enlighten them.
It's clear that their attempt at "enlightening" people didn't work very well since it was primarily THEIR Philosophy that was being discussed on Mar's Hill. Plato's model of the Academy and their teachings were still alive and well in Athens at the time Paul visited the place and said it was WHOLLY GIVEN TO IDOLATRY. And what did Paul speak to them of? The UNKNOWN GOD. Obviously the enlightenment that was in them was really darkness, because they had been being "enlightened" by the THEOLOGY of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle for at least 3 centuries. AND it is this very same theology that can be traced back through Christianity right to their doorstep.
It is historically accurate to say that as men advanced in learning the main trunk of PHILOSOPHY called THEOLOGY set it's roots down in Christian doctrine and writings. While the branches of other fields broke off and became separate fields of study.
It is the very theology within the philosophy of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle that Paul WARNED those in his time about, that would LEAD THEM AWAY FROM CHRIST and cause them to err in the Scriptures.
No one ever needed to go to college or get any degrees in THEOLOGY to talk about God or his word. That is something that the WORLD teaches and promotes NOT GOD. I'm sure you all knew how to READ before you ever came to Christ and before you ever studied "theology". No one had to teach you HOW to read God's Word. You were just led to believe that by the educational system. But they don't teach you how to just read God's word, since you needed no one to teach you HOW TO READ. They had to teach you how to read God's word THEIR WAY. And how to apply their SYSTEMS of THEOLOGY to that Word, which are based in Greek PHILOSOPHY, the SAME Philosophy Paul warned would take as SPOIL, PREY captive away from Christ rather than to him.
Col. 2:7 6 As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him: Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.
Beware lest any man spoil you through PHILOSOPHY and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
It was a very present and real danger for the believers of that time to be led off into philosophy by it's application to scripture. Just as it is today amonst the people of God, under that name of theology.
The problem is that theology is so designed to make men THINK they are coming closer to Christ, and to knowing the truth, when in reality it dose just the opposite. That is why it is so deceptive and why Paul so strongly warned the believers in his day to stay away from it. Paul had been educated in it and then later found out what it was really all about and renounced it.
2 Cor 4:1 Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not; But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
The systems of THEOLOGY are the PHILOSOPHY the SCIENCE FALSELY SO-CALLED, that cause people to ERR from the truth of what is REALLY WRITTEN in the Scriptures. THEOLOGY is composed of METHODS and SYSTEMS that make one think they are using viable means of study, when in reality they are designed to BLIND ONES EYES to the truth of what it written by placing a PROGRAM in their head.
No one needs any of these PROGRAMS, SYSTEMS OR METHODS to simply READ the scriptures. Simply reading and discussing the scriptures, is not in and of itself THEOLOGY in the TRUE SENSE OF THE WORD.
These are MAN-MADE traditions, and methodologies which Paul called "science falsely so-called" that lead one to err from the truth.
EVERYONE of these systems and methods of theology can be traced directly back to their originators Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle the fathers of PHILOSOPHY, that same PHILOSOPHY that Paul WARNED those in his time about that would take one captive and lead them as spoil away from Christ.
WHY dose Jo-Anne or any of us need to know what Narrative theology is to READ and UNDERSTAND the scriptures? For that matter why do any of us have to know what the Historical SYSTEM of THEOLOGY is to read and understand the scriptures? Or the PRETERIST, FUTURIST, ALLEGORICAL, or any of the multitude of other SYSTEMS and METHODS of THEOLOGY, that all wind up with a different meaning anyway?
Theologies do not start with the premise of knowing nothing and then try to use its principles of the various systems to come to a correct answer. They admit that they start with a DOCTRINE FIRST and then just develop a SYSTEM around that doctrine in order to make the Bible seem to say what they want it to say. There is no SCIENCE about any of it. You can mix and match all these systems in feed it into someone's head to seemingly prove just about anything you personally want to prove. Hence when you apply these systems you are not seeking the truth, you are seeking to make the Word say what you want it to say.
Now when I say "YOU", I am not speaking of "you personally" Dr. Boyd but in general that this is the whole purpose of theology and why it was invented by Socrates, Plato and Aristotle to begin with, and which the WORLD had deceived us all into thinking will bring us closer to Christ, by opening up the understanding of God's Word to us. BUT IN REALITY it is designed to do just the opposite.
That people have “OPINIONS” as to what the Word of God is saying is quite different than a whole SYSTEM under a major theme like Narrative Theology or any other. That these same Theology’s will endeavor to steal from what is true science like GRAMMAR and LANGUAGES to seem like they teach the truth of how to STUDY also dose not count. For Grammar and Language is only used SELECTIVELY when and were there is no threat to any pet doctrine they espouse. But the slight use of it, deceives us into thinking they must have been using it all along. Just like they mention “context” as a principle of interpretation, but in reality ONLY use it SELECTIVELY when and where it dose not threaten what they are trying to prove to us.
Dr. Boyd, I have read Homer, and I have read and thoroughly researched and studied Plato’s Republic as well as many other sources right from the horse’s mouths. And Plato’s Republic teaches EXACTLY what I have been stating here. It teaches HOW to DECEIVE and it calls it THEOLOGY. It is the FOUNDATION of what our whole theological educational system if founded upon. But men have been blinded to this fact by the very institutions of education that they have attended for going on 2000 years now. That is why PAUL WARNED ABOUT IT.
That these methods of Theology are purposely designed to DECEIVE is HIDDEN from the eyes of men, just like it was HIDDEN from Paul who called it THE HIDDEN THINGS OF DISHONESTY, that lead men to HANDLE THE WORD OF GOD DECEITFULLY. But they think they are doing the RIGHT THING. Ultimately men of God if they could see the truth of what I am saying here would be HORRIFIED that these things they were learning that are forbidden in Scripture, are leading them to unintentionally corrupt the true meaning of God‘s Word, and to teach others how to carry on that same corruption, thinking they are speaking the truth. What better way to deceive sincere God loving men, by teaching them to handle the Word of God deceitfully, while making them think they are handling it honestly.
Regarding what I said about the origin of theology you said: Its conspiratorial and WAY off. Socrates and Plato and Aristotle were reflecting on the wild anthropomorphic things popular texts (like Homer... ever read it?) say about the gods. They weren't trying to "deceive" people but enlighten them. “
You are right in saying that it is “CONSPIRATORIAL”, only I’m not the one that just dreamed it up, THEY ARE.
They came up with a METHOD of education in which they would be able to DECEIVE through the manner in which they taught a WRITTEN DOCUMENT. This METHOD of DECEPTION they called THEOLOGY. And it is the same exact method the same exact theology that is used in every educational institution on the face of the earth at this time. What Socrates, Plato and Aristotle came up with and developed over 3 centuries before Christ is the very FOUNDATION of ALL THEOLOGICAL SYSTEMS taught in CHRISTIANITY TODAY.
Therefore we are using a system of study that was purposely designed to deceive by PAGAN PHILOSOPHERS, to try and teach THE TRUTH of God’s Word? What is WRONG with that picture? Even the very principles within that system “HERMENEUTICS” is named after a PAGAN GOD “Hermes”. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT PICTURE? We are letting the PAGANS tell us what God’s word is saying, when they didn’t even like what their own prophets wrote and developed theology specifically to convince others that what they READ really wasn’t what it said?
Now maybe we have been so blinded to God’s word by this stuff, that the only way we can ever get undone from their THEOLOGY is to go back and read exactly what they themselves said about the very system they created. I challenge you, any of you, to read the following and then tell me, that these men were acting honestly.
Before one reads this is should be noted that to the Greeks, the poets like Homer were considered to be not just “poets” but “PROPHETS” or men who spoke and wrote about the gods. And their writings were called “graphes” the same word used in the New Testament and translated “scripture”. At the same time, it should be remembered that when ever they are speaking about GOD, they are not speaking about OUR GOD, or the god of the Bible, but of pagan gods, and the GOD ZEUS. That Chrstians could easily take all these generic terms like “graphes, scripture” and “theos, god” and transpose it into Christian doctrine, using the very same principles you will see they developed is not beyond one’s imagination, especially since that is exactly what Christians did in the first century and have been doing every since. And this is the very thing that Paul warned about, that would lead men to corrupt the Word of God.
The Republic Book 2
[note; the “guardians” are the “teachers” especially those who teach religion.]
Socrates: Neither, if we mean our future guardians to regard the habit of quarrelling among themselves as of all things the basest, should any word be said to them of the wars in heaven, and of the plots and fightings of the gods against one another, for they are not true.
[The FIRST rule of Theology as you will see is what NOT to mention. Even though it is actually written in the texts they are speaking of. Homer and others wrote of the wars in heaven amongst the gods. Socrates personally believed this was not true. Our Bible also speaks of wars in heaven amongst angles, so now is this not true also? Socrates could nt change what Homer and others wrote, he is describing who Homer should be taught, and the FIRST rule is just to avoid and not mention anything he disagrees with. ]
No, we shall never mention the battles of the giants, or let them be embroidered on garments; and we shall be silent about the innumerable other quarrels of gods and heroes with their friends and relatives. If they would only believe us we would tell them that quarrelling is unholy, and that never up to this time has there been any, quarrel between citizens; this is what old men and old women should begin by telling children; and when they grow up, the poets also should be told to compose for them in a similar spirit.
[They could not change what was already written, but now if they could they would control what was written thereafter.]
But the narrative of Hephaestus binding Here his mother, or how on another occasion Zeus sent him flying for taking her part when she was being beaten, and all the battles of the gods in Homer --these tales must not be admitted into our State, whether they are supposed to have an allegorical meaning or not.
For a young person cannot judge what is allegorical and what is literal; anything that he receives into his mind at that age is likely to become indelible and unalterable; and therefore it is most important that the tales which the young first hear should be models of virtuous thoughts.
There you are right, he replied; but if any one asks where are such models to be found and of what tales are you speaking --how shall we answer him?
I said to him, You and I, Adeimantus, at this moment are not poets, but founders of a State: now the founders of a State ought to know the general forms in which poets should cast their tales, and the limits which must be observed by them, but to make the tales is not their business.
Very true, he said; but what are these forms of THEOLOGY which you mean?
[There we have recorded history of the first usage of the word, and the principles that follow, namely endeavoring to change what a written document is actually saying just because you don’t like what it says.]
Something of this kind, I replied: --God (Zues)is always to be represented as he truly is,
[Remember Socrates god was Zeus and he is referring to what Homer wrote about Zeus. Homer represented Zeus and the other Greek god’s as the truly were. Paul said the things that the Gentiles sacrificed unto, they sacrificed unto devils and not unto God. They worshipped the hosts of heaven, that is evil angels that tried to portray themselves to mankind as gods. Therefore Homer in a sense spoke the truth of what these evil angels were like, and Socrates is trying to say that they were not really like this at all. But he cannot just come out and say HOMER WAS A LIAR, because the Greeks revered Homer. So he is coming up with a way to teach Homer’s book, and change the true character of the gods, i.e. evil angels pawning themselves off as gods.]
Something of this kind, I replied: --God (Zeus) is always to be represented as he truly is,
whatever be the sort of poetry, epic, lyric or tragic, in which the representation is given.
Right.
And is he (Zeus) not truly good? and must he not be represented as such?
Certainly.
And no good thing is hurtful?
No, indeed.
And that which is not hurtful hurts not?
Certainly not.
And that which hurts not does no evil?
No.
And can that (Zeus) which does no evil be a cause of evil?
Impossible.
And the good is advantageous?
Yes.
And therefore the cause of well-being?
Yes.
It follows therefore that the good (Zeus) is not the cause of all things, but of the good only?
Assuredly.
Then God (Zeus) , if he be good, is not the author of all things (good and evil), as the many assert, but he is the cause of a few things only, and not of most things that occur to men. For few are the goods of human life, and many are the evils, and the good is to be attributed to God (Zeus) alone; of the evils the causes are to be sought elsewhere, and not in him (Zeus).
That appears to me to be most true, he said.
Then we must not listen to Homer or to any other poet who is guilty of the folly of saying that two casks Lie at the threshold of Zeus, full of lots, one of good, the other of evil lots, and that he to whom Zeus gives a mixture of the two Sometimes meets with evil fortune, at other times with good; but that he to whom is given the cup of unmingled ill,
[Now HOMER has been DEAD for centuries so HOW can Socrates say he’s not going to listen to him, he’s DEAD. Socrates is talking about what Homer WROTE. When he says “then we must not listen to Homer...” he’s referring back to this first principle of theology that first of all you avoid reading any passages of Homer that say the gods especially Zeus dose any evil to man. He’s talking about how to teach Homer, just like people would later teach the Bible, by avoiding any scripture that disagrees with what THEIR PERSONAL OPINION of what they think God truly is and should truly be represented as. Socrates goes on to speak of what kind of verses in Homer should be avoided at all costs when one teaches Homer.]
Him (Zeus) wild hunger drives o'er the beauteous earth. And again
Zeus, who is the dispenser of good and evil to us. And if any one asserts that the violation of oaths and treaties, which was really the work of Pandarus, was brought about by Athene and Zeus, or that the strife and contention of the gods was instigated by Themis and Zeus, he shall not have our approval; neither will we allow our young men to hear the words of Aeschylus, that God (Zeus) plants guilt among men when he desires utterly to destroy a house. And if a poet writes of the sufferings of Niobe --the subject of the tragedy in which these iambic verses occur --or of the house of Pelops, or of the Trojan war or on any similar theme, either we must not permit him to say that these are the works of God (Zeus), or if they are of God (Zeus), he must devise some explanation of them such as WE ARE SEEKING;
[Now right there the little weasel shows that he dosn't care if what is said about "God" Zeus is true of not.]
...or if they are of God (Zeus), he must devise some explanation of them such as WE ARE SEEKING;
[Theology was invented to make PRIVATE INTERPRETATION seem like it is what the scripture is actually saying. That is why Peter warned about this very same thing. Now just imagine applying these same basic principles in teaching the Bible as Socrates here is developing to teach to children from their youth up, about the book of Homer. The point is NOT weather or not what Homer said was true or false, the point is that Homer said what Homer said, just like the Bible says what the Bible says. We shouldn’t cut stuff out and avoid it because we don’t personally like the manner in which it portrays God. We shouldn’t think those who wrote it were liars, and then just pick out those verses we personally like. Then we shouldn’t try and dictate to others that they must follow our ideas and cut out the same scriptures we do and not permit them to write. But his is EXACTLY what has been taking place in theology ever since Christianity adopted it clear back in the first century. And when confronted with those verses they AVOID, they then have been taught to DEVISE EXPLANATIONS for why it dose not really say what it really says. And this is the foundation and the basis for ALL systems of theology. And these DEVISED EXPLANATIONS are what blinds men to the truth once they are accepted.]
Socrates goes on to say what teachers about “god” should not say.
he must say that God did what was just and right, and they were the better for being punished; but that those who are punished are miserable, and that God is the author of their misery --the poet (teacher, minister) is not to be permitted to say;
though he may say that the wicked are miserable because they require to be punished, and are benefited by receiving punishment from God (Zeus) ; but that God (Zeus) being good is the author of evil to any one is to be strenuously denied, and not to be said or sung or heard in verse or prose by any one whether old or young in any well-ordered commonwealth. Such a fiction is suicidal, ruinous, impious.
[Theology means “rational utterance concerning the gods”. No man would be allowed to speak what Socrates here personally felt was not rational. However this principle could also be applied by anyone who thought the opposite of Socrates. What is personally rational to one man might not be personally rational to another. But the basic principles of theology that he begins discussing here can be used by either to promote their beliefs into the minds of men, without those men being the wiser as to the fact they are being deceived. When we come to Christ, we come pretty ignorant of what the Scriptures teach. Those we come to we TRUST for the most part to teach us the truth. But instead we have ALL be beguiled by those we trust into the personal opinions of whoever founded whatever ministry we got first involved with. And it was done through the very means of deception that was first developed by THESE MEN.]
I agree with you, he replied, and am ready to give my assent to the law.
[This so-called “law” was one of the “norms” that Plato said must be prescribed whenever men spoke about the “gods”.]
Let this then be one of our rules and principles concerning the gods, to which our poets and reciters will be expected to conform --that God (Zeus) is not the author of all things, but of good only.
[NO that is not the “law, rule or principle” that is his personal opinion. He is just going to use the LAW he just made up previously discussed to get people to believe this. That “god” ZEUS is not the author of all things but of good only is his OPINION. If he can get people to follow the rule that you avoid anything Homer says contrary to that opinion, and devise explanations to explain it all away, then his opinion become DOCTRINE. But since Homer and the other Greek prophets who wrote the Greek “scripture” say Zeus was a mean thug that did both good and evil to people, he’s looking for a way to cut out all the verses that say anything about his evil deeds. This blanket generic statement “that theos is not the author of all things, but of good only”, is also not true concerning what the BIBLE says. But if you avoid at all costs any verses of scripture saying otherwise, then you can make people think what you want them to think concerning that subject. Your personal opinion then become the DOCTRINE that others follow because of the manner in which you taught the writings.
Well his first principle is that you just won’t let anyone talk about those verses, and you won’t bring them up when you teach. Now since Plato here started the first academy, upon which all of our own higher education is based, then in academia this is the NO 1 rule of teaching. You don’t mention anything you don’t want someone to believe, nor do you allow it to be taught. If they want to teach it they have to go build their own school. Which they do and then teach the young in the same manner as their opponent just using the same basic principle on the opposite opinion.
Theology has NOTHING to do with seeking and finding the truth. It has everything to do with subverting the truth to line up with one’s opinions. However we are generations down the line from all of this and men sincerely think that what they believe is based on the truth. But in reality they have just been brainwashed to believe someone PRIVATE INTERPRETATION, their OPINION, that became a DOCTRINE of truth to us, because of the manner in which it was taught to us. That is the ugly beauty of the deception of theology, it makes you think you know the truth when you have actually been deceived, into not reading or considering all those seemingly contradictory verses.
Now that’s the first principle, what is the second true principle of theology?
Socrates continues:
And what do you think of a second principle? Shall I ask you whether God (Zeus NOT the “God” of the Bible) is a magician, and of a nature to appear insidiously now in one shape, and now in another --sometimes himself changing and passing into many forms, sometimes deceiving us with the semblance of such transformations; or is he one and the same immutably fixed in his own proper image?
[Now we know from the BIBLE that Zeus is just another name for a devil which the Greeks worshipped. Therefore dose the devil change? Dose not the Bible say he comes as an angle of light? And what about our God, then how would this doctrine apply to him? Does he change FORM? Did he give up all to become a man and redeem us from our sins? Here in this doctrine, Christians following theology in the first century started saying that Jesus did not really come in the flesh. But this is not actually his second principle, this is his doctrine his second major principle of theology comes a little later in the dialog where he states the following.]
Whereas the lie in words is in certain cases useful and not hateful; in dealing with enemies (an enemy is anyone that believes differently about Zeus than Socrates) --that would be an instance; or again, when those whom we call our friends in a fit of madness or illusion are going to do some harm, then it is useful and is a sort of medicine or preventive; also in the tales of mythology (Homer and other Greek writers) , of which we were just now speaking --because we do not know the truth about ancient times, we make falsehood as much like truth as we can, and so turn it to account.
Very true, he said.
But can any of these reasons apply to God (Zeus) ? Can we suppose that he is ignorant of antiquity, and therefore has recourse to invention?
That would be ridiculous, he said.
Then the lying poet has no place in our idea of God?
I should say not.
Or perhaps he (Zeus) may tell a lie because he is afraid of enemies?
That is inconceivable.
But he (Zeus) may have friends who are senseless or mad?
But no mad or senseless person can be a friend of God (Zeus) .
Then no motive can be imagined why God (Zeus) should lie?
None whatever.
Then the superhuman and divine is absolutely incapable of falsehood?
[Now you tell me, is the OPINION of Socrates here true? Is the superhuman and divine absolutely incapable of falsehood? Homer and the other Greek writers wrote much on the LYING and deceit of the Greek gods. Even the bible states that when people do not receive a love of the truth God will send them a strong delusion that they will believe a lie. But the point here is not what is true or false, but that Socrates did not like what Homer wrote, and a PERSONAL OPINION about Zeus, and is endeavoring to convince people through education and teaching how not to believe what they read, read into it and devise explanations for why it doesn’t say what it really says, and doesn’t mean what it really means. And this is called THEOLOGY. And it‘s the SAME theology that is taught in every educational institution in the WORLD TODAY.]
Socrates continues his scheme saying:
Then is God perfectly simple and true both in word and deed; he changes not; he deceives not, either by sign or word, by dream or waking vision.
Your thoughts, he said, are the reflection of my own.
You agree with me then, I said, that this is the second type or form in which we should write and speak about divine things. The gods are not magicians who transform themselves, neither do they deceive mankind in any way.
I grant that.
Then, although we are admirers of Homer, we do not admire the lying dream which Zeus sends to Agamemnon; neither will we praise the verses of Aeschylus in which Thetis says that Apollo at her nuptials. Was celebrating in song her fair progeny whose days were to he long, and to know no sickness. And when he had spoken of my lot as in all things blessed of heaven he raised a note of triumph and cheered my soul. And I thought that the word of Phoebus being divine and full of prophecy, would not fail. And now he himself who uttered the strain, he who was present at the banquet, and who said this --he it is who has slain my son.
[They would ACT as if they admired Homer, and yet call any part of his writings that did not agree with their PRIVATE OPINION a lie. You find that in theological systems all the time. Here they are teaching the BIBLE, and at the same time devising ways to tell you how much of a lie so many parts of the bible are. They have untold numbers of ways to do this.]
FINALLY after all his claptrap, he give the real SECOND PRINCIPLE of Theology.
These are the kind of sentiments about the gods which will arouse our anger; and he who utters them shall be refused a chorus; neither shall we allow teachers to make use of them in the instruction of the young, meaning, as we do, that our guardians, as far as men can be, should be true worshippers of (OUR OPINIONS ABOUT) the gods and like them.
I entirely agree, be said, in these principles, and promise to make them my laws.
Theological principle no. 2, is to get ANGRY at anyone who has a different opinion and not let him teach in your school, and label him as a heretic. This take place when they guy keeps reading Homer and seeing that all your DEVISED EXPLANATIONS do just not line up with what he’s reading nor what’s he’s experienced.
Principle no. 1. AVOID any verses of scripture that speak of anything you don’t agree with, and don’t line up with your PERSONAL OPINION.
Principle no. 1.B. Since you can’t get rid of the writings themselves and people are bound to read some of those verses you AVOID when you teach, THEN DEVISE AND EXPLANATION to explain them away as not actually meaning what they really say.
Principle no. 2. ACT like you admire and revere the author of the writing even when you think he’s a liar. And when that one contentious individual comes along that refuses to accept your PERSONAL OPINION and DEVISED THEOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS, GET ANGRY and kick him out of your school so that he will not get any one else to start questioning.
Just in case you haven’t noticed these same exact principles are applied in journalism and politics. It’s a from of what is called “Rhetoric” the means by which people control what is spoken of and said, in such a way as to keep others from hearing ALL of the truth and so control men’s minds. As Paul said “How shall they hear without a preacher”? If you can control the subject matter through these means, you can keep people from hearing anything that dose not agree with YOUR OPINION.
So then what about principle no. 3?
Socrates: Such then, I said, are our (foundational) principles of theology --some tales are to be told, and others are not to be told to our disciples from their youth upwards, if we mean them to honour the gods (Zesu, Apollo, Hermes, etc.) and their parents, and to value friendship with one another.
Yes; and I think that our principles are right, he said.
But if they are to be courageous, must they not learn OTHER LESSONS BESIDES THESE, and lessons of such a kind as will TAKE AWAY THE FEAR OF DEATH? Can any man be courageous who has the fear of death in him?
Now here we get into the ultimate teaching of theology, which is that when you pervert or disobey God’s Word, THOU SHALT NOT SURELY DIE. Remember who said that?
Socrates is teaching about SATAN here. Zeus was SATAN the DEVIL the SERPENT. Just because he uses the word “GOD”, Christians later took all this stuff and combined it with Christianity and Christian doctrine perverting the gospel, because this stuff was POPULAR, and enticing and WORLD WISDOM. But Paul said that the world through this so called WISDOM knew not God. And at all places in the scripture where it speaks of the "WISDOM OF THIS WORLD" it is speaking about Greek Philosophy, which we all later adopted.
Socrates then states:
Then we must assume a control over the narrators (teachers and writers) of this class of tales as well as over the others, and beg them not simply to but rather to commend the world below, intimating to them that their descriptions are untrue, and will do harm to our future warriors. (As in Satan's future spiritual warriors who will promote his teachings in the name of Christ.)
How do you “ASSUME CONTROL” ? You assume control by controlling EDUCATION. It's ALL ABOUT CONTROL. Controlling what you think by controlling what gets taught. This is the whole purpose of theology and why I say that by the time you get done reading what they write you could have read the bible a thousand times over and really learned some of the truth about God. Men of God are taken captive by the educational institutions of our day and led into thinking that they are following the truth, when in reality they have spent so much time learning theology and it’s methods of persuasive personal opinion, that they truly never learned the Scriptures.
It just looks like we all know the scriptures, because theology is used on the Scriptures just like Socrates, Plato and Aristotle used it on Homer and the other Greek writers. This is a teaching on HOW TO LIE, and make it SEEM LIKE THE TRUTH, when it‘s really a highly refined form of DECEPTION.
Socrates : Again, truth (remember his opinion of what the truth was) should be highly valued; if, as we were saying, a lie is useless to the gods, AND USEFUL ONLY AS A MEDICINE TO MEN, then the use of such medicines (LIES) should be restricted to physicians (TEACHERS, DOCTORS of the LAW); private individuals have no business with them.
Clearly not, he said.
Then if any one at all is to have THE PRIVILEGE OF LYING, the rulers of the State (the guardians the teachers of religion.) should be the persons; and they, in their dealings either with enemies (those of another opinion or doctrine) or with their own citizens (same opinion or doctrine), MAY BE ALLOWED TO LIE for the public good (to further the cause of what they personally think is true and right.) . But nobody else should meddle with anything of the kind;
Socrates: and although the rulers (those that teach about God) have this privilege (TO LIE), for a private man to lie to them in return is to be deemed a more heinous fault than for the patient or the pupil of a gymnasium not to speak the truth about his own bodily illnesses to the physician or to the trainer, or for a sailor not to tell the captain what is happening about the ship and the rest of the crew, and how things are going with himself or his fellow sailors.
Most true, he said.
If, then, the ruler catches anybody beside himself lying (practicing their principles of theology, which is HOW to lie.) in the State, Any of the craftsmen, whether he priest or physician or carpenter. he will punish him for introducing a practice which is equally subversive and destructive of ship or State.
[size=4]Most certainly, he said, if our idea of the State is ever carried out.
PEOPLE THEIR IDEA OF THE STATE IS BEING CARRIED OUT![size=4]
What started out as their “idea” over 2300 years ago HAS BEEN IN THE PROCESS OF BEING CARRIED OUT, ever since they sat there and had that conversation and Plato wrote it down!
This very theology they had this quaint little conversation about 300 years before Christ came, was taught in all the schools by the time Christ arrived. And it is the very same thing that permeates the entire world of education today. Christians of the first century of whom many were educated in Socratic, Platonic and Aristotlian Philosophy fell in love with this method of controlling and manipulating the beliefs of others, and used it on the Scriptures.
We have inherited 2000 years worth of DECEIT.
EVERYTHING that we have come to believe about the Bible for the most part has been tainted or is based on 2000 years of PERSONAL OPINIONS that have had cunningly devised explanations given to them called SYSTEMS of THEOLOGY.
I beseech you to search out what I say here is the truth, and to COME OUT OF IT, to recognize, repent and renounce it, before it is too late. I was taken captive by these things, an through the mercy of God, came to see the truth and recover myself. God is the one to whom we should seek to teach us his word as we read it, and not the endless monologs of theology that deceive and blind one to the truth, just as they were designed to do.
Peter warned that there would be FALSE TEACHERS among us.
WHERE DO YOU FIND THE TEACHERS? You find them in the SCHOOLS.
And amongst them are well meaning sincere God loving men who have been deceived and taken captive to PHILOSOPHY, and blinded to the truth.
BUT GOD IS CALLING EACH ONE OF YOU TO COME OUT OF IT!
God is calling each and every one of you as he did Paul, to come out of this deception and to see it for what it really is, so that HE can teach you as you read his wonderful written Word, and not CUT 80 to 90 percent out that dose not line up with the personal opinions of the men who led you into all of this.
This started long before any of us were ever born, I do not accuse anyone of being a FALSE TEACHER, but simply tell you that you have all been taken captive by false teaching that began 2300 years ago and which many of those whom we revere and love have and were also taken captive by.
I beseech you all who have all innocently been captivated by these teachings, to consider these words and search and see that what I state here is the truth. For you now know HOW the devil deceives the WHOLE WORLD.
Is there a CONSPIRACY? YES there is a conspiracy and it began by one man influenced by deceiving spirits over 2300 years ago.
Now I speak to those of you have any inkling to prophecy, and to those things which Daniel saw in his visions, concerning the king and the prince of Greece. Socrates received his knowledge through the visions of a daimon, translated “devil” in the Scripture. He taught Plato and Plato wrote the Republic of which we have just been reading. Plato’s real name was Aristocles, and he was the LAST living and known descendant of the Kings of Athens of a line that can be traced back 1700 years.
Next to Jesus Christ, this man teachings have had more influence over the world as we know it than any other man in human history. And they have had the greatest impact of all directly ON the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Holy Scripture through the methods of THEOLOGY that he learned from his teacher Socrates, who received it from a LYING SPIRIT. This is how “doctrines” of devils is passed on from one man to the next.
A lying spirit, a daimon, devil taught it to Socrates, Socrates taught it to Plato, Plato taught it to Aristotle, Aristotle taught it to Alexander the Great as he traveled with him as he conquered the then know world, including Perisa. Alexander instituted these teachings in the lybraries and schools which came out of his kingdom. Rome adopted it. The Jews adopted it. Christianity adopted it and carried it from the first century to today and instituted it in every hall of higher learning in the World. EVERY religion has adopted this same exact PHILOSOPHY of how to LIE, and make people think it’s the TRUTH.
Men who teach about spiritual things are according to the Word of God the KINGS OF THE EARTH. When these men are deceived and wind up teaching falsely they lead the whole world into darkness and deception because it influences every aspect of culture and life.
Again I beseech you as Priests and Kings unto God and the Lord Jesus Christ, to open your eyes and see THEOLOGY proper and it's systems for what it really is.
In the love and service of Christ,
larris
"If you continue (abide and live) in my word, then you shall be my disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." Jesus Christ. (John 8:31) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/30/2004 8:01 AM (GMT -6) | | In all the history of Eastern Orthodox Christianity THREE persons are called "the theologian": St. John who wrote "In the beginning was the Word..."; St. Gregory Nazianzus the Theologian (One of those responsible for defending that God is the Most Holy Trinity: three uncreated and divine persons of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, in one and the same uncreated, divine nature.) and St. Simeon the New Theolgian (who taught much about prayer and
According to St. John the Theologian, "God is love; and he who dwells in love dwells in God" (I John 4:16).
THAT IS A VERY GOOD DEFINITION RIGHT THERE OF THEOLOGY: DWELLING IN GOD. | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 6/30/2004 11:22 AM (GMT -6) | | POW: Whats your point?! To the rest of us, we don't care how many people Eastern Orthodox have called theologian. The simple fact that anyone who discusses/think over God is a theologian in some sense. Your take is kind of like the Catholics going all gaga over saints. To them it means something. The rest of us chuckle and could care less.
BTW, looks like you've got a prodigy in Larris. Has he been taking length lessons from ya-all! 
Larris, could you quote the exact verse where God is calls people to SPECIFICALLY OF THEOLOGY. Not your conjecture or any other "interpretation," but a specfic verse.
Finally, L, by saying that John was not a theologian, you too are redefining the word into your own likeness. Smells like hypocrisy to me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 6/30/2004 3:21 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
Larris seems to have a profound grasp of sophistry, that's for sure.
The Greeks invented the word "sophistry".
larris, when you use up EVERY LAST WORD in the universe, then what are we going to use?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/30/2004 7:52 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
...we don't care how many people Eastern Orthodox have called theologian.
Which, of course, was NOT the point. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/30/2004 8:04 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
In all the history of Eastern Orthodox Christianity THREE persons are called "the theologian": St. John who wrote "In the beginning was the Word..."; St. Gregory Nazianzus the Theologian (One of those responsible for defending that God is the Most Holy Trinity: three uncreated and divine persons of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, in one and the same uncreated, divine nature.) and St. Simeon the New Theolgian (who taught much about prayer and
According to St. John the Theologian, "God is love; and he who dwells in love dwells in God" (I John 4:16).
THAT IS A VERY GOOD DEFINITION RIGHT THERE OF THEOLOGY: DWELLING IN GOD.
"In Patristic tradition,
theologians are the God-seers."
That has at least as much to do with the HEART as it does with the head.
St. Anthony was illiterate!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/30/2004 8:07 PM (GMT -6) | |
According to Saint Gregory Palamas
theologians are the God-seers;
those who have followed the "method"
of the Church and have attained
to perfect faith,
to the illumination of the nous
and to divinisation (theosis).
Theology is the fruit of man's cure
and the path which leads to cure
and the acquisition of
the knowledge of God.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/30/2004 8:20 PM (GMT -6) | | Here's an even SHORTER definition:
The theologian: one who prays | | Back to Top | | |
|
larris
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 7/1/2004 9:46 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi John,
You said: "Larris seems to have a profound grasp of sophistry, that's for sure."
The "Sophists" were itenerate Sages (literally meaning men who know ) who became the first perveyors of of anyting having the character if higher learning. They were employed to teach the youth of Greece's upper classes.
Socrates and his followers called themselves philosophers in order to emphasieze their distinction from the Sophists (literally wise men who know.) and their disclaimer of the sophistic pretension to be able to impart higherlearning with authority.
The Sophists endeavored to give instruction and education on a wide variety of topics. Socrates on the other hand claimed to know nothing and that he was ignorant, and played the role of being a seeker after wisdom and a leader of discussion by asking ENDLESS QUESTIONS. However as you can see by his questions he had an ANSWER already in mind, and his questions were simply a means of persuasion and manipulation to convince others of what he PERSONALLY believed.
In short he was a manipulative hypocrite who hated anyone who thought diffrently than he did, and used nice manners and questions to draw people into a debate over the issues and intrap them in perverse logic. He DID NOT ASK QUESTIONS BECAUSE HE WANTED TO KNOW ANYTHING! He already thought he KNEW, that he was a wise man who KNEW, just like the Sophists he hated.
There is nothing wrong with "questioning", that is who people learn. BUT there is something wrong with using questions as a means of manipulation of others to your own ideas. For instance the question "Hath God REALLY said?" The Serpent asked the question with a spcific view of deceit in mind, not becaus he wanted to know what God REALLY said. And so Socrates also asked questions with the same intent.
And he taught how to devise questions and answers that make it seem like the person is coming to the conclusion you are drawing them to all on their own. In other words how to make them think it's THEIR IDEA. This type of deception became an ART form in Greece after every one began following the Socratic methods. Plato and Aristotle were masters of it. Christians began using it as a means of defending the faith, in appologetics they wrote, as well as a means of persuading others to their doctrines. Paul stated he never used any of this stuff when he declaired the gospel.
1 Cor 1:17
17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
You have to transpose yourself back to this time, and see clearly what was taught in the schools and practices all over the Roman world. Namely the philisophical education of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle of which a MAJOR aspect was DISPUTING with WORDS AND QUESTIONS. When ever Paul speaks of the "wisdom of this world", he is refering to Philosophy, of which the very same theology used today was a major part. It became a seperate branch of study LATER, but at htis time it was still the main part of philosophy.
The only reason Paul did not use the word "theoloyg" was becasue at the time, it was included in Philosophy, as one of the main sciences along with mathematics and physical science. Paul called it the "science falsely so called". However anohter main branch of philosophy of that time was RHETORIC, which taught the art of PERSUSION, or how to dispute to prove a point. Paul said he used NONE of these things, to preach the gospel. However these are the very things God's ministers today are trained in.
And there is a DIRECT historical line going from right where we stand today man by man, year by year 2000 years back right smack dab to the very philosophy, and world wisdom that Paul warned would lead us away from Christ if it was applied by us to the gospel.
The funny thing is that this historical line of facts and evidence is so blantent, so obvioius, so right in front of our face that we don't see it. Yet it is so simple and so easy to find that even a child can find it. One of the greatest means of deception is to rob and steal from someone while they are watching you do it.
We look at all the Colleges and Semenary's and they are teahcing the very things Paul warned us about, and leading God's men to unintentionally corrupt his Word, and we admire them for it. They are the "Robbers of God's People". They steal our pastors and our teachers and educate them in the very things that Paul said would lead us away from Christ. And yet they claim most of all and much of the time to so revere Paul. Just as Socrates claimed to revere Homer, and yet considdered much of what Homer wrote a lie.
1 Cor 1:24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.
In the love of Christ,
larris
"If you continue (abide and live) in my word, then you shall be my disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." Jesus Christ. (John 8:31) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/1/2004 9:59 AM (GMT -6) | | Practically speaking, we have a hard time keeping things in balance. Always been that way. So, we need the learned and structured sort, and we need the charismatic sort. And when we aren't listening to eachother the tides will swing back and forth. Always been that way. (I've been reading a history book on the subject today.)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/1/2004 10:16 AM (GMT -6) | | Larris,
I'm apparently being too cryptic in my comments. What I am saying is that this argument YOU have put forth here is fallacious, not unlike your argument about Metzger a few weeks back, for it is based on faulty premises.
Your argument that ALL theology is false only holds true if one begins with your definition of theology (which no one here but you apparently holds). While it is of course true that SOME theologies are based on false premises and deceptive philosophy, this does not mean that ALL theology is false.
Theology, as defined by most people, is simply the study and discussion of God. Of course there is a danger in merely studying ABOUT God and not actually KNOWING Him, but it is also true that one can BOTH know Him and seek to learn more about Him (which is what I think most of us here are trying to do, including yourself).
(Please refer to the definition of theology found at the following link whenever I use the term) :
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theology
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/1/2004 10:17 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
Practically speaking, we have a hard time keeping things in balance. Always been that way. So, we need the learned and structured sort, and we need the charismatic sort. And when we aren't listening to eachother the tides will swing back and forth. Always been that way. (I've been reading a history book on the subject today.)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 7/1/2004 11:32 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by larris
Well that's really interesting John, that the very sophistry that Socrates himself hated and which he claimed he was not one of, finally came to rerpresent the very arguments and deceptive taktics he was able to teach to others.
In my dictionary a synonym for it is "fallacy".
So then would a "philosoper" be he a religious or secular philosopher, be a "lover of falsehood"?
In the love of Christ,
larris
Congratulations, larris. This was the first post of yours short enough for me to read. See, I have a short attention.... HEY! lookit that bird outside!
Seriously, when you post a long monologue built around scripture, as you have, YOU, yourself are doing "theology". Theology is "thinking about God". Nothing wrong with that.
I think of "theology" as an organizing, simplying technique, that brings meaning to the rambling, real-world narrative of scripture.
Regarding the differences of opinions among Christians:
why are there larris' and Boyds' and Earps' in the kingdom? To reach other larrises and other Boyds and other Earps. It's insane to think one kind of Christian can reach all kinds of people.
One may be more abstract in their thinking (logic matrices, classical theological terms), another may be more concrete in their thinking (the plain scriptural text, practical illustrations). But none should think they've cornered the market on representation and presentation of scriptural truths.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/1/2004 7:47 PM (GMT -6) | | Story time!
Recently, my best friend and I have had some fairly deep discussions on a very important issue. Our views weren't all that different, but they were different enough. We'd been debating off and on for maybe three months. Finally, we worked backwards to where our common views split. (She favored government protection of some positive liberties; I only think the government should protect negative liberties.) We both had reasons for our different opinions, but what it really boiled down to was just our assumptions. We deal with life with slightly different assumptions. This may sound dry, but it was one of the most fulfilling moments (at least for me). I loved that we could both recognize exactly how we disagreed. From then on we knew how to talk to eachother better; we knew where the other one was coming from and how certain words were loaded to the other's ears. I think it would be more productive do aim toward something like this. Instead of fighting over the consequences of our different beliefs, we might seek to understand where the other person is coming from and then debate those root beliefs.
As confusing as it makes things, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle are not authorities on the definitions of English words, even if those words used to be Greek. Maybe they'd be experts on the etymology, but not the meaning. It's messy, but the general consensus of the masses determines the meaning of words. That's even the way it was 3000 years ago. The words theology, philosophy, and sophistry had meaning before Socrates got a hold of them, before Heraclitus (I can't spell) and Homer got a hold of them. The masses make words meaningful. The experts get relatively little say.
But I'm willing to compromise (I think). Tell me what the technical word is for talking about God that does not imply error, deceit, or arrogance; the word that describes what Paul was doing in this "theological" portions of his letters. What the heck? Go ahead and write a dissertation about it. Maybe we can use that word instead of theology.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/6/2004 5:57 AM (GMT -6) | |
I came upon a definition of theology today:
Theology is contemplation about revelation.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/7/2004 10:37 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
| 68 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:52 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|