What is theology?

[marco]

Theology originally meant the study of God. In studying him Christian theologians examine the Bible and make what pass for rational arguments about biblical pronouncements. It is useful to study myths and legends for they often tell tales about man's psychology. But is there any point in pretending to study God when neither believer nor unbeliever has anything concrete to go on?

Why do universities still admit this subject as a serious area of study?

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 57 by bluethread]

Returning back to the topic and accepting the reality that we as a nation have already decided that public education will be retained for the betterment of our society(if you disagree name one first world country without public education).


Strictly from a purely pro vs con perspective:

What benefits does studying theology provide compared with studying in areas of science?

I think it can give historical insight into an era or culture, although I think it is hard to separate whether a culture molds the religion or the religion molds a culture. That's fuzzy waters at best in my opinion. But studying theology (not A theology, but theology in general) might have some social science value.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 57 by bluethread]

Returning back to the topic and accepting the reality that we as a nation have already decided that public education will be retained for the betterment of our society(if you disagree name one first world country without public education).


Strictly from a purely pro vs con perspective:

What benefits does studying theology provide compared with studying in areas of science?

I generally do not take a pro/con approach to intellectual disciplines. Science is a methodology for analyzing current systems using current empirical evidence. Theology is the study of deities by all sources and all methodologies. It is like trying to compare a cider press to apple farming. If you want a glass of juice, you don't need to know anything about apple farming. You just have to have a press and some apples. However, if you want to know something about apples, a cider press can only provide a limited amount of information.

[bluethread]

As I pointed out, it is the arguments, not the degrees or size of the list that counts. It appears that you agree with the point I was making when...

Not in the least. What you wrote, here and elsewhere, was a complete misstatement of that point. you set up a straw man, completely distorting what H. Sapiens said, then you went on to proclaim your position as a science denier.

You avoided the main point of that post:
Whether it is climate change denial or denial of evolution or other firmly grounded scientific facts, it is always political and religious conservatives who are in the vanguard of science denial and always they are motivated by ideology and religion rather than facts. This attitude only serves to further discredit both the religions and the ideologies that drive this nonsense.

No, I was avoiding being drawn into a discussion of an issue that I had merely used as an illustration of how it is not productive to dismiss those who hold opposing views on an issue, because one does not wish to "suffer fools". I acknowledge that you take a firm position on one side of the issue I used as an illustration. However, your zeal does not justify the practice of out of hand branding those who are on the other side of that issue as "fools". Not that you are coming out and doing that. It is just the branding one's opposition as "fools" was the issue I was addressing. Goring oxen is great fun until one's own ox gets gored.

[bluethread]

Forgive my waxing pedantic, but I think it best to leave the trivial exercise of looking it up to you; that way you will better understand and remember your error.

Do you correct all grammatical errors, or only do so when it is valuable as an attempt to credit and discredit sources, rather than addressing the topic, i.e. "suffering fools".

Therefore, pointing out such fallacies is profitable, because it can draw out actual arguments.

Only when one understands the nature of the fallacies. I recommend to you that you study a bit and then, perhaps, we may try again.

Well, if after making a statement that could be a fallacy one provides further details, the does not change it's fallacious appearance in the first instance. In fact, when one does such a thing it supports the point I was making that pointing out the fallacious nature of a stand alone argument can resulting further explanation.

It is best for both sides of an argument to "suffer fools", rather than just blowing off those with whom one disagrees, as H.sapien suggests.

Not when the argument in question is one that has been previously been falsified repeatedly and when the supporting accusations are all but illiterate. That is not the time to call a "spade" and "entrenching tool."

Throughout history things that have been resolve by those who "suffer fools", and many of them have been considered "fools" themselves, based on the fact that they did not have proper credentials, or their views had been repeatedly rejected.

That said, I really did not intend on turning a thread on the nature of theology into a "climate change" thread. So, we can leave that argument for another thread.

Sure you did, and now (in true Trump fashion) you'd like to get of the hole you dug yourself into by ducking your own pirating of the topic. That brings to mind the boy who killed his parents and then threw himself on the mercy of the court because he was an orphan. Man-up and take responsibility for you own actions.

On what do you base your judgement of my intent? I made my intent clear in the very next post, and every post since. Post 52 "That is my point, simply touting credentials or calling those with whom one disagrees with "fools" does not address the argument." The fact that I used an example of your argument in a rejection of a view you hold just shows how your argument does not hold. In fact, that is precisely my point. When one argues one should not "suffer fools", one is not arguing for discussion. One is seeking to end discussion. Yet, that same individual will demand that the other "suffer fools", simply because he believes the other is the "fool".

[H.sapiens]

Forgive my waxing pedantic, but I think it best to leave the trivial exercise of looking it up to you; that way you will better understand and remember your error.

Do you correct all grammatical errors, or only do so when it is valuable as an attempt to credit and discredit sources, rather than addressing the topic, i.e. "suffering fools".

As I recall I first corrected your lack of logical construct (the question of what is an actual "appeal to authority") and your basic understanding of said logical fallacy, then as a bonus I corrected your lack of style, and denied the existence of the ad hominem that you proposed that I have made. Lacking and interest in piling Pelion on Ossa, I ignored your grammar, but if you'd like to confess ... now's your chance ... as I suggested, this it the time for you to man-up and take responsibility for you own actions. Then we may start again and forget the excess of error that you committed.

[bluethread]

Forgive my waxing pedantic, but I think it best to leave the trivial exercise of looking it up to you; that way you will better understand and remember your error.

Do you correct all grammatical errors, or only do so when it is valuable as an attempt to credit and discredit sources, rather than addressing the topic, i.e. "suffering fools".

As I recall I first corrected your lack of logical construct (the question of what is an actual "appeal to authority") and your basic understanding of said logical fallacy, then as a bonus I corrected your lack of style, and denied the existence of the ad hominem that you proposed that I have made. Lacking and interest in piling Pelion on Ossa, I ignored your grammar, but if you'd like to confess ... now's your chance ... as I suggested, this it the time for you to man-up and take responsibility for you own actions. Then we may start again and forget the excess of error that you committed.

I am in no way concerned about the possible grammatical error. It is just another red herring to avoid the point I was making regarding "suffering fools". It is possible that the assertion I presented as a possible example of what you call "suffering fools" should have been presented as a question, or as a third party assertion. However, in every post since I have made it clear that my intent was present that assertion as an example of someone claiming to "suffer fools", and not as an issue in place of the one proposed by the OP.

[H.sapiens]

Forgive my waxing pedantic, but I think it best to leave the trivial exercise of looking it up to you; that way you will better understand and remember your error.

Do you correct all grammatical errors, or only do so when it is valuable as an attempt to credit and discredit sources, rather than addressing the topic, i.e. "suffering fools".

As I recall I first corrected your lack of logical construct (the question of what is an actual "appeal to authority") and your basic understanding of said logical fallacy, then as a bonus I corrected your lack of style, and denied the existence of the ad hominem that you proposed that I have made. Lacking and interest in piling Pelion on Ossa, I ignored your grammar, but if you'd like to confess ... now's your chance ... as I suggested, this it the time for you to man-up and take responsibility for you own actions. Then we may start again and forget the excess of error that you committed.

I am in no way concerned about the possible grammatical error. It is just another red herring to avoid the point I was making regarding "suffering fools". It is possible that the assertion I presented as a possible example of what you call "suffering fools" should have been presented as a question, or as a third party assertion. However, in every post since I have made it clear that my intent was present that assertion as an example of someone claiming to "suffer fools", and not as an issue in place of the one proposed by the OP.

Whether I think you a fool or not is hardly the issue here, it is but my opinion and that is of little matter.

What is at point is whether the incorrect information you present, the mistakes in logic that you make, your lack of writing style and grammar as well as your intransigent inability to take responsibility for your errors when they are clearly identified, paints you as foolish or wise.

[bluethread]

What is at point is whether the incorrect information you present, the mistakes in logic that you make, your lack of writing style and grammar as well as your intransigent inability to take responsibility for your errors when they are clearly identified, paints you as foolish or wise.

So, it's all about me? I am honored that you should be so obsessive as to try to pick a fight with someone who is merely trying to point out that maybe "suffering fools" is sometimes more productive than using that phrase as means of avoiding conversation all together.

[Danmark]

As I pointed out, it is the arguments, not the degrees or size of the list that counts. It appears that you agree with the point I was making when...

Not in the least. What you wrote, here and elsewhere, was a complete misstatement of that point. you set up a straw man, completely distorting what H. Sapiens said, then you went on to proclaim your position as a science denier.

You avoided the main point of that post:
Whether it is climate change denial or denial of evolution or other firmly grounded scientific facts, it is always political and religious conservatives who are in the vanguard of science denial and always they are motivated by ideology and religion rather than facts. This attitude only serves to further discredit both the religions and the ideologies that drive this nonsense.

No, I was avoiding being drawn into a discussion of an issue that I had merely used as an illustration of how it is not productive to dismiss those who hold opposing views on an issue, because one does not wish to "suffer fools". I acknowledge that you take a firm position on one side of the issue I used as an illustration. However, your zeal does not justify the practice of out of hand branding those who are on the other side of that issue as "fools". Not that you are coming out and doing that. It is just the branding one's opposition as "fools" was the issue I was addressing. Goring oxen is great fun until one's own ox gets gored.

Twice here you have falsely accused me of calling people I disagree with as "fools." Your "Not that you are coming out and doing that" seems disingenuous, else why would your entire post be about this accusation. My point is that it is most frequently religious and political conservatives who deny scientific conclusions and evidence. They do so, not for reasons of science, truth, or reality, but because their ideology is more precious to them than truth.

[H.sapiens]

What is at point is whether the incorrect information you present, the mistakes in logic that you make, your lack of writing style and grammar as well as your intransigent inability to take responsibility for your errors when they are clearly identified, paints you as foolish or wise.

So, it's all about me? I am honored that you should be so obsessive as to try to pick a fight with someone who is merely trying to point out that maybe "suffering fools" is sometimes more productive than using that phrase as means of avoiding conversation all together.

Hardly, that's just where you insist on taking the conversation since you have no other answer. As I recall, I had corrected your lack of logical construct (the question of what is an actual "appeal to authority") and your basic understanding of said logical fallacy. Care to return to that and see what you can do?