NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/aus/religion/997

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-22 | 7.3 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!math.fu-berlin.de!informatik.tu-muenchen.de!regent!monu1.cc.monash.edu.au!monu6!bruce.cs.monash.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU!ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au!lugb!lure.latrobe.edu.au!lhccjeh
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re: Interpretation of Scripture
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 01:18:40 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
References: <[e-mail]> <jhb.724917412@monet>
Distribution: aus
Organization: VAX Cluster, Computer Centre, La Trobe University
Lines: 121

Hi guys,

Long time since I dropped a line here but gee, its my last day at work
before the break and I thought it would be nice to wish all and sundry
a merry Christmas, or happy holiday break or both.
I did find the below mentioned article interesting though as it seems
to be stuck in semantics. [Aren't we all ;-)]

In article <jhb.724917412@monet>,
    [e-mail] (John Brownie) writes:
> [e-mail] (Rick Jelliffe) writes:
>
>>My reasoning is this: theology is knowledge of God. Someone who truly
>>knows God is a Saint, because of the transforming power of the knowledge
>>and encounter with God. So Saints are to be defered to in matters of
>>theology: the intuition of a Saint is more credible than the intuition of
>>a scholar because of the special nature of theology: its Subject is
>>personal and responds to the enquirer uniquely and dynamically. Of course,
>>a Saint who is also a scholar (e.g. St Thomas Aquinas) is doubly good.
>>Thus theology has a fundamentally mystical side, which outside of the
>>methodology of science, though more real (in that God is the ground of all
>>being).

I didn't know that this was the meaning of theology. My oxford tells me that
theology is the study of a system of religion. If one had knowledge of God
there would be no point in studying, would there?

I am also not so sure abouts saints being special in their access to knowledge
but I will accept that as part of someone's "theology".
[no comment about the additive nature of knowledge assumed here]

> I agree wholeheartedly that theology is more than an academic pursuit.
Probably so. Any serious [loaded word] study is one done with passion. Passion
in religious study is almost certainly more than academic.
>
>>While I agree with Erasmus that purity of original text can clear up
>>many doctrinal problems, and that knowledge of the original words
>>and culture helps greatly, nevertheless, ultimately the Bible is
>>interesting to the Christian because of the theological encounters possible
>>through it. This encounter is collective within the organic church (Tradition)
>>as well as personal, but you seem to want it to be synthetic too:
>>based on the disciplined methodologies of science.
>
> Why not?  What is wrong with using a disciplined methodology?  Perhaps
> science is not the correct model, for we are in the realms of literature,
> history, and theology.  However, reading the text carefully is an
> essential for understanding it correctly.
Here is where the difference in interpretation seems to be most clear. Are you
guys arguing about an experience or a science. Being a physicist I do get
drawn back on having well defined terms. Theology is the science or study
of religion, not the experience of it. That is not to say that they don't
happen together.
Rick is using the term to encompass experience, John seems to be more
exact with his use (??). This is not to say that either is wrong, simply
to say they are different. Whether argument helps to remove the difference,
enhance it or something else, I don't know, but it helps if it is at least\
recognised.

I include below an excerpt from the text of my belief system. Please read it as
I really feel you can apply it equally to your belief system [well you may
quibble at the definition of atonement and sin, but that aside...]
It talks of theology versus experience, and the need to be mindful of the
underlying purpose of the text you are studying. I trust that its words won't
get in the way of its message just as the words don't get in the way of the
Bible's message just as the words don't get in the way or your messages [and
mine :-)]

** This is not a course in philosophical speculation, nor is it concerned
** with precise terminology. It is concerned only with Atonement, or the
** correction of perception. The means of the Atonement is forgiveness.
** The structure of "individual consciousness" is essentially irrelevant
** because it is a concept representing the "original error" or the "original
** sin." To study the error itself does not lead to correction, if you are
** indeed to succeed in overlooking the error. And it is just this process
** of overlooking at which the course aims.
** All terms are potentially controversial, and those who seek
** controversy will find it. Yet those who seek clarification will find it as
** well. They must, however, be willing to overlook controversy,
** recognizing that it is a defense against truth in the form of a delaying
** maneuver. Theological considerations as such are necessarily
** controversial, since they depend on belief and can therefore be
** accepted or rejected. A universal theology is impossible, but a
** universal experience is not only possible but necessary. It is this
** experience toward which the course is directed. Here alone consistency
** becomes possible because here alone uncertainty ends.
** This course remains within the ego framework, where it is needed. It is
** not concerned with what is beyond all error because it is planned only
** to set the direction towards it. Therefore it uses words, which are
** symbolic, and cannot express what lies beyond symbols. It is merely
** the ego that questions because it is only the ego that doubts. The
** course merely gives another answer, once a question has been raised.
** However, this answer does not attempt to resort to inventiveness or
** ingenuity. These are attributes of the ego. The course is simple. It has
** one function and one goal. Only in that does it remain wholly consistent
** because only that can be consistent.
** The ego will demand many answers that this course does not give. It
** does not recognize as questions the mere form of a question to which
** an answer is impossible. The ego may ask, "How did the impossible
** occur?", "To what did the impossible happen?", and may ask this in
** many forms. Yet there is no answer; only an experience. Seek only this,
** and do not let theology delay you.

>
May your studies and experience lead you where you truly want.

In Christ,

James
--
_____________________________________________________________________________
James Hale                 Lincoln School of Health Sciences
Computing Unit            La Trobe University,Bundoora, AUSTRALIA

[e-mail]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The grace of God rests gently on forgiving eyes,
and everything they look on speaks of Him to the beholder.
He can see no evil, nothing in the world to fear,
and no one who is different from himself."
                        Text, P 418
_____________________________________________________________________________