Talk:Theology/Archive 1

message: #Theological study approaches its topic from a position of belief; thus it must be distinguished from the philosophy of religion, which does not presume the truth of the religious beliefs it examines
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)
thread_title:  Theology approaches from a position of belief 

message: 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.
=== Theology predates Christianity ===
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 echo these sentiments. -- NetEsq 02:14, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Hindu Theologies

message: 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 echo these sentiments. -- NetEsq 02:14, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Theology]] predates Christianity 

message: 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)
replies: text: Ok.  That is interesting enough to me as a theme to develop on the theology page.  And I could find that an interesting pursuit.  But isn't that bloody battlefield over at the Creationism page much more interesting? Rednblu 02:39, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship of creationism to theology 

message: 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)
replies: text: Ok.  That is interesting enough to me as a theme to develop on the theology page.  And I could find that an interesting pursuit.  But isn't that bloody battlefield over at the Creationism page much more interesting? Rednblu 02:39, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the [[Theology]] page be improved? 

message: 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.
: That's ==References==, actually. The reference looks excellent, although info on each person is rather limited. It'll help fill out some stubs at least, in a lacking area. Deco 17:36, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  13th century theologians list 

message: 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)
thread_title:  a reworking 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Theory that gods exist because people believe in them 

message: 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
:I have reverted your edit; it is inappropriate to replace an article with its broken version. If you want to start a rewrite, use Theology/temp or some similar name. (The previous version can be found here if you are interested in it.) Sincerely, Mike Rosoft 15:26, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Finally did it; now I need your help

message: 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)
thread_title: Theology article and the wikipedia style guide

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why has this page become part of the Philosophy series? 

message: 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)
thread_title: History of Theology

message: 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)
thread_title:  Theology and Vaccination 

message: Is there an archaic word, such as "godlore" ore "godwit", to have designed theology? - Waelsch 18:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Godlore 

message: User:Mahigton wrote some points, to which Im responding. -Stevertigo
# 'Typically Greek and Latin language-derived terms': only if you are concentrating on a narrow range of Western theologies, which at least the early parts of the article try not to do.  There are forms of theology historically and today which focus on Syriac, Hebrew, Arabic, Coptic, Sanskrit, Pali... -M
:# I understand, and it is quite valid to state this in the lede; as a caveat to the dominance of Greco-Roman-"based" culture of theology. The issue is the terminology, as it bonds culture and religion together in a framework which may be variant from earlier forms. The dominance of GR terms carries with it some implied constraints from within GR culture. The antecedents you listed, while fundamental, are operable largely due to their translation to GR word form. Your point is quite valid, but the mention "typically Greek and Latin" was simply a note to myself to link up the GR concept with the Western society context; explain how this linguistic foundation has had a role in defining a secular theology - apart from say an Islamic theology, which itself may be attributable to the limitations of Arabic vocabulary. -SV
::#I'm thinking particularly of the fact that the article contains, fairly early on, a section on theology in religions other than Christianity - and thinking that whilst it is of course true, that the term "theology" itself has Greek roots and a strong Latin history, it is now used, by extension, to talk about Islamic kalam, about Hindu darshama, and so on.  And I'm also thinking about the fact that the claim to about the dominance of 'Greek and Latin language-derived terms' needs to be handled rather carefully.  On the one hand there is the fact (not mentioned in the article) that the acceptance of Greek and Latin as dominant languages for much Christian and some Jewish theology did not take place without a transformation of both languages.  On the other hand there is the fact (also not mentioned) that the later transition to Western European and other vernaculars instead of Latin has (arguably) been equally transformative.  Maybe we want some kind of statement in the lede along the lines that, "Although it can now be used much more widely, the term 'theology' most naturally refers to Christian intellectual traditions and particularly to those classic strands of Christian intellectual endeavour that were conducted in Latin in the West or Greek in the East, and to the modern traditions that look back to those classic strands."  My own feeling is that only the first half of this - or something like it - actually belongs in the Lede. - M
# 'as a means to clarify religious differences' - That is the purpose of some, but by no means all practitioners of theology; I rather doubt it would even be a majority position. -M 
:# True, but in some respects it doesnt matter even if a majority of theologians disagree with this aspect. Theologian culture comes with implied customs and rules for intercommunication, which in turn provide a platform for discussion. At some level this engenders a resolution of issues in a sociological way, if not in a doctrinal way. Syncretism isnt syncretism if its a sea change. Considering that Northern Ireland's conflicts were/are something less than a theological debate, we havent seen sectarian violence in the west  for a substantial amount of time. Theology has provided a platform by which religious experts can make clarifying statements on religious matters -often in contradiction to any attempted political usage. -SV
::#But if the article says "Theologians typically attempt to use rational language and argument  ... to discuss, interpret, and teach  ... as a means to clarify religious differences' that sounds very much like a declaration about the explicit intention of theologians.  If you want to make the claim that the theological endeavour has, often despite the intentions of its practitioners, helped enable cohabitation and mutual understanding between religious traditions, that's a rather different claim.  Is it true? -M
#'and to maintain a dominantly secular concept of faith' - isn't that's a rather sweeping generalisation?  It is certainly not NPOV; I find it hard to think of any theologians who would accept it without massive qualifications. -M
:# That line is certainly misworded. Faith itself isnt secularised - Western theologian culture is. -SV
=== part. ===
::#Are you wanting to claim more than that the theology that takes place in the modern West takes place in, and is in all sorts of ways shaped by, Western secular culture, to the extent that much Western theology can itself be characterised as 'secular'?  I'd have two objections, even so.  In the first place, in an article that tries not to limit itself to talking about Western theology, it seems a shame to be so limited in the Lede.  In the second place, sociologists of religion debate at great length the secularisation thesis, and it is by no means certain - and by no means uncontroversial - that Western culture can straightforwardly be described as 'secular', still less Western theology.  This still feels, to be honest, like you are wanting to make a polemical point. -M
:::# Honestly, no. Im simply basing one concept on another concept, and relating the two. Granted, the view that Western society is "secular" is problematic, if only because its a relativistic view. This is likewise complicated by overlap in concepts of East/West Orient/Occident Dharmic/Abrahamic cultures and religion. While my focus has been on the anomaly of 'Oriental Abrahamic' Islam, this comes about due to a nominal use of contrasts and anomalies to define concepts (see my new section "modes of writing" at WP:LEDE), as well as the obvious fact that there are some real-world splits (contrasts!) between theology and theocracy —which appear to, at least have some relationship to the forementioned Orient/Occident split. These, again are crude concepts which 1. help define major concepts and 2. are helped by being defined relative to major concepts. Looks like a circular argument? Perhaps, but it taps into very broad worldviews and assumptions which need addressing from every context —not least of all this one. Perhaps thats "polemical," but I see it simply as a function of being universalist in approaching any topic. -SV
# 'The concept of "theology" represents an influence of Western academic empiricism and secular Western culture on the religious world'.  No it doesn't.  If you read the early part of the article on the history of the term, you will see that, in the first place, relevant uses of the term 'theology' were established before 'Western academic empiricism' etc. existed, and that the term is now used for a wide variety of practices/discourses, only some of which are covered by your comment.  If you want to add a discussion about the 'Western empiricism' inherent in some dominant forms of theology, put it later in the article as a separate point, and back it up properly: don't put it here in the header.
:# Its important to establish context in the lede. Your criticism is really one which centers on the flaws in using the East-West distinction at all. Its hard to argue with your point, except to say that when defining important context in the lede, it helps to be generalist. Yes there is variance in the operant usage of "theology", and this is best related in terms of a spectrum. "If you read the article" you will note that the history of the term is Greek and Aristotilian, which though "established before 'Western academic empiricism', were the very foundation of 'Western academic empiricism.' An even more Western-confined definition: "In other patristic Greek sources, theologia could also refer narrowly to the discussion of the attribution of divine nature to Jesus." (!) So you catch my drift. Granted, 'academic' is confusing, and 'empiricism' as a (empirical) concept doesnt come around for some 600 years after Aristotle... hence the essence could be better stated, but nevertheless points again to the important 'Western' element. The only issue is how to not overstate it in the lede. On that I can certainly compromise with you.
::#The article describes the process by which a specific Greek term became the broad name for a whole set of forms of intellectual religious discourse which were predominantly Greek and Latin, along the way being used for narrower purposes, and then became a term which in the modern world could be used to refer (with some caveats and qualifications) to analogous discourses in other religious traditions.  It might be appropriate to state something like this in the Lede, but it is not appropriate to prejudge those issues by privileging in the Lede the Western, Greco-Roman-derived meanings of the word, is it?
# 'Hence the term generally refers to religious education in the Western world'.  No.  Contemporary use of the term is broader than that - as is discussed later on in the article. -M
:# Western culture cannot define a concept outside of western culture without explaining the caveats for its implementation. If "theology" comes from "other patristic Greek sources," which "could also refer" to the "divine nature to Jesus," then there is an intrinsic (cultural) spin to how and what the term defines. To say 'our "contemporary" usage is broad (universalist)' would seem to belie the actual etymology of the term!  Even if we cant ask the important question 'is something lost in the translation of this term to other languages' in the lede, we still need to frame the context, and do so in a manner which points those who are interested in this question in a clear direction. -SV
::#Etymology does not exhaust use.  We are now in a situation where 'theology' is used, for a variety of reasons, to speak about discourses within non-Christian, non-Western religious traditions that are analogous to 'theology' as a Christian discourse.  The article discusses some of the cavetas that surround this analogical extension.  Nevertheless, it is simply the case that, rightly or wrongly, contemporary users of the world by no means all use it to refer to "religious education in the Western world".  That is one, prominent usage, but there are others which are important. 
# 'in accordance with both the societal norms of Western-style academic inquiry'.  No, again.  This is true only of some of the discourses/practices which these days get identified as theology.  For instance, try asking about the practice of theology in Orthodox Christianity: you would find great resistance from many practitioners to the idea that 'theology' is predominantly a Western-style academic discipline. -M
:# This was overstated, Ill give you that. -SV
# 'Western theological traditions have developed according to predominanty Christian and Jewish beliefs'.  What are you claiming here?  If by 'Western theological traditions' you mean the 'Judeo-Christian tradition' or something similar, this is a tautology.  If you don't mean that, what do you mean? -M
:# "Tautology" has three definitions, all apparently refering to something which is "self-evident" and "obviously" such as to be "hardly worth mentioning" (ie. "all crows are black"). Applying this definition to your statmenent above, you seem to be claiming that stating 'theology is tied to the Judeo-Christian tradition' is too "obvious" as to be "hardly worth mentioning." Is this a correct interpretation? On the one hand you argue that "theology" is "broad", and on the other hand you say its tie to the 'Judeo-Christian tradition' (separate even from other notable Abrahamic traditions) is so intrinsic as to be like saying "all crows are black." Please clarify- what are you claiming here? -SV
::#If 'Western theological traditions' means 'Christian and Jewish theological traditions', or something like that, then your sentence becomes 'Christian and Jewish theological traditions have developed according to predominantly Christian and Jewish beliefs' which is, surely,  'hardly worth mentioning'.  From your clarifications, however, it sounds like you mean to make the much stronger claim that where it is claimed that there are discourses within other religions which can be called, analogously, 'theology', that always in fact the involves the witting or unwitting imposition of ideas about the nature of belief derived specifically from Christianity and Judaism.  Something like that may well be true - but it is a controversial and complex claim that surely needs to be discussed in the body of the article, not simply stated in the Lede. -Mah
# 'and in most cases study is directly tied to evangelism'.  Simply untrue.  A large number of those working in theology departments or faculties in Western Europe or the States would deny this claim vociferously. - Mah
:# I understand, but perhaps "evangelism" is incorrect. Dont students go into clergy? Doesnt the U.S., for example, view the tie between endorsing religion and funding theological education too close to handle within its legal framework for educational funding? I would support replacing it with a statement like 'the link between theology and evangelism is controversial' and point to a subsection. While I may be making the mistake of overstating this tie (along with describing the "Western" culture in which theologians swim in) at this point I think its important to not understate it (or them). -SV
::# Perhaps all that can be said at this point is that 'Many different views are held about the relationship between the study of theology and the training or equipping of students for various forms of religious ministry'. -Mah
# 'Students in theology often seek to become religious clergy.'  This is discussed later on in the article, and the situation is complicated.  True, some forms of theological education or training are specifically designed as part of training for religious ministry of some kind; but some are not.  I teach in a theology department, for instance, where the overwhelming majority of students are NOT seeking to become 'religious clergy' - and that is not untypical of such Departments in my country. -Mah
:# What are the career opportunities, aside from the obvious? -SV
::# Theology in the UK is often seen as simply one more humanities degree, opening up the same sorts of careers as any other humanities degree: teaching, publishing, media, business... and so on.  I work in a Department of Theology which is a part of a 'School of Humanities and Social Sciences'. and graduate destinations for the Department's students do not differ dramatically from those for the other Departments in the School: history, philosophy, politics, social science, and so on. -Mah
=== part. ===
# 'Within the "theological" framework, student theologians may engage in extra-traditional religious discourse and navigate many of the sectarian and denominational differences between various doctrines (dogma), while remaining as faithful believers in their respective traditions.'  This is a somewhat more valid point, and could perhaps become a section further down in the article; it certainly doesn't belong here in the header.  But it is very unclear as written - and implicitly generalises far too much about what theology looks like and how it works.  In some contexts where theology is taught, what you say might be true; in some it is not, and in some it wouldn't even make sense. -Mah
:# I will never disagree with someone who wants to expand on a point further. I do disagree with the notion that such things are too 'unclear' if explained in summary in the lede. The lede provides overview, as well as an editorial direction and scope for the article. All I can do is try to be as generalist as possible (for which my limited expertise is actually a strength), and not interfere with the experts but rather to help guide experts to an understanding of our need for generality and context. Though I would be offended if this point was called an issue of simple style, we can compare this above modality with articles that begin with "[topic] is a very difficult subject to explain..." -SV 
::#I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be insulting - but it does seem to me that there's a great deal compressed into this statement, and that a general reader will find it pretty difficult to unpack.  And I'm still not convinced that what it says is central enough to go in the Lede.  I take it that you are claiming that there is a lot of structural similarity between forms of theological discourse in the various different religious traditions, and that as a result students of theology within a particular tradition automatically acquire an intellectual toolkit which can be used beyond their particular tradition - providing them with tools and analogues which allow them to make some headway in understanding other religious traditions, and seeing more clearly the difference between those traditions and their own.'  This, as I say, is an interesting claim - though I personally think it debatable - but I'm still dubious about its place in the Lede.  I accept your comment about the Lede providing "editorial direction and scope for the article" - I wonder in this case therefore whether the Lede comment should simply be an indication that there is a question about the extent to which theology should be seen as a discourse firmly internal to a particular religious tradition, and the extent to which it should be seen as a discourse that can explore and compare various different traditions - or something like that.  The more detailed discussion could then be a section further down. -Mah
# 'In contrast, a theocracy asserts that religious spirituality should have dominance over and within all matters of government, including academic study.'  This too is very unclear.  I presume that you are wanting to contrast theological study within secular regimes with theological study within 'theocratic' regimes, claiming that the former is characterised by a degree of pluralism or at least attention to differing views that is absent from the latter.  However, as well as being expressed very unclearly, it is not clear that this claim is true.  There are forms of theology in secular regimes which are distinctly non-pluralist; there are forms of theological study in religious regimes which are pluralist.  If you want to make this article explore this point in more detail, why not try adding to the discussion of academic freedom and confessional basis later on in the article, rather than putting this rather misleading statement here? -Mah
:# Again its a balance between overgeneralization and overspecification, and how to summarise important points without doing much of either. I much appreciate the criticism. -SV
# 'Such a system of predefined laws must accept local sectarian views as their foundation, and thus differences tend to be undebated, unresolved, and increasing due to natural cultural divergences.'  You are making a whole set of problematic claims here: (i) that religious regimes use 'predefined' laws; (ii) that such laws must be 'sectarian'; and (iii) that such systems rule out debate and change.  We could debate each of these, if you like - in my opinion each of them is wrong, or at best misleading - but I'm very unclear what place you think they have in a top-level definition of 'theology'.  Haven't you got off topic? --mah 08:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: # Good points (1) not all theocratic laws are "predefined" but instead are interpreted. This seems to be a function of the language power issue though, and I suppose that is a bit hard to explain here. Secular terms allow for greater description, more defintions, less interpretation, and hence less subjectivity and more universality. (2) it shouldnt say such laws "must be sectarian", but rather they are deferential to sectarian influence. In the context of universalism, which this term purports to belong to, "sectarianism" is simply a natural state of any localized religious framework. Ie. an Ayatollah isnt going to declare that everyone in his jurisdiction is converting to a different branch of Islam. There are no absolutes, even in theocracies. But to not mention the fact of localism is to make the mistake of making definitive statements which are too general. Using the English language to its fullest, the term "sectarian" simply addresses the imperfection of a definitive term like "religion" by simply avoiding it. (3) It may be a bit off topic; if one views the tie between theology (as its applied) and secularism, as of minimal importance. I think its of prime importance, just as it is important to mention 'water' in the lede of an article about 'fish.' All that said, using theology as a contrast may be more problematic than we can handle right now, and I can easily agree to taking that part out for now. Regards, -Ste|vertigo 16:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think we are communicating extremely well, and your summary of those issues is good enough to include in text. IMHO we should now think about how to structure the article and, keeping the distinction between issues of substance and the article's modality, how to best represent the various caveats. All I can say is that we can be both substantive and artful in finding a balance which touches enough on the issues to best relate the concept's general shape. But in a basic sense, we are encumbered by the paradox of secular and religious language and their inability to adequately describe this very paradox of terms within their own respective terms. My solution has been to simply employ the usage of a spectrum of terms, which offer a sense of the scalar relationship between discrete ideas in secularism, versus transcendent ideas in spirituality. For example in good and evil, I defined knowledge of "truth" by relating it to human value, sanctity, and divinity. While divinity itself should rightly raise some secular objections, human value is an important secular concept, and these two are tied together by the concept of sanctity (inviolability). Ie. the trick is in using terms which have a balance between secular and religious usage. More later. -Ste|vertigo 19:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: PS: Relate mysticism. -Ste|vertigo 23:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede 

message: # 'Within the "theological" framework, student theologians may engage in extra-traditional religious discourse and navigate many of the sectarian and denominational differences between various doctrines (dogma), while remaining as faithful believers in their respective traditions.'  This is a somewhat more valid point, and could perhaps become a section further down in the article; it certainly doesn't belong here in the header.  But it is very unclear as written - and implicitly generalises far too much about what theology looks like and how it works.  In some contexts where theology is taught, what you say might be true; in some it is not, and in some it wouldn't even make sense. -Mah
:# I will never disagree with someone who wants to expand on a point further. I do disagree with the notion that such things are too 'unclear' if explained in summary in the lede. The lede provides overview, as well as an editorial direction and scope for the article. All I can do is try to be as generalist as possible (for which my limited expertise is actually a strength), and not interfere with the experts but rather to help guide experts to an understanding of our need for generality and context. Though I would be offended if this point was called an issue of simple style, we can compare this above modality with articles that begin with "[topic] is a very difficult subject to explain..." -SV 
::#I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be insulting - but it does seem to me that there's a great deal compressed into this statement, and that a general reader will find it pretty difficult to unpack.  And I'm still not convinced that what it says is central enough to go in the Lede.  I take it that you are claiming that there is a lot of structural similarity between forms of theological discourse in the various different religious traditions, and that as a result students of theology within a particular tradition automatically acquire an intellectual toolkit which can be used beyond their particular tradition - providing them with tools and analogues which allow them to make some headway in understanding other religious traditions, and seeing more clearly the difference between those traditions and their own.'  This, as I say, is an interesting claim - though I personally think it debatable - but I'm still dubious about its place in the Lede.  I accept your comment about the Lede providing "editorial direction and scope for the article" - I wonder in this case therefore whether the Lede comment should simply be an indication that there is a question about the extent to which theology should be seen as a discourse firmly internal to a particular religious tradition, and the extent to which it should be seen as a discourse that can explore and compare various different traditions - or something like that.  The more detailed discussion could then be a section further down. -Mah
# 'In contrast, a theocracy asserts that religious spirituality should have dominance over and within all matters of government, including academic study.'  This too is very unclear.  I presume that you are wanting to contrast theological study within secular regimes with theological study within 'theocratic' regimes, claiming that the former is characterised by a degree of pluralism or at least attention to differing views that is absent from the latter.  However, as well as being expressed very unclearly, it is not clear that this claim is true.  There are forms of theology in secular regimes which are distinctly non-pluralist; there are forms of theological study in religious regimes which are pluralist.  If you want to make this article explore this point in more detail, why not try adding to the discussion of academic freedom and confessional basis later on in the article, rather than putting this rather misleading statement here? -Mah
:# Again its a balance between overgeneralization and overspecification, and how to summarise important points without doing much of either. I much appreciate the criticism. -SV
# 'Such a system of predefined laws must accept local sectarian views as their foundation, and thus differences tend to be undebated, unresolved, and increasing due to natural cultural divergences.'  You are making a whole set of problematic claims here: (i) that religious regimes use 'predefined' laws; (ii) that such laws must be 'sectarian'; and (iii) that such systems rule out debate and change.  We could debate each of these, if you like - in my opinion each of them is wrong, or at best misleading - but I'm very unclear what place you think they have in a top-level definition of 'theology'.  Haven't you got off topic? --mah 08:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: # Good points (1) not all theocratic laws are "predefined" but instead are interpreted. This seems to be a function of the language power issue though, and I suppose that is a bit hard to explain here. Secular terms allow for greater description, more defintions, less interpretation, and hence less subjectivity and more universality. (2) it shouldnt say such laws "must be sectarian", but rather they are deferential to sectarian influence. In the context of universalism, which this term purports to belong to, "sectarianism" is simply a natural state of any localized religious framework. Ie. an Ayatollah isnt going to declare that everyone in his jurisdiction is converting to a different branch of Islam. There are no absolutes, even in theocracies. But to not mention the fact of localism is to make the mistake of making definitive statements which are too general. Using the English language to its fullest, the term "sectarian" simply addresses the imperfection of a definitive term like "religion" by simply avoiding it. (3) It may be a bit off topic; if one views the tie between theology (as its applied) and secularism, as of minimal importance. I think its of prime importance, just as it is important to mention 'water' in the lede of an article about 'fish.' All that said, using theology as a contrast may be more problematic than we can handle right now, and I can easily agree to taking that part out for now. Regards, -Ste|vertigo 16:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  part. 

message: 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:
* The very idea of 'reasoned discourse about religion/God' is an idea with a very particular intellectual pedigree, with its roots in Graeco-Roman intellectual culture.
* This idea actually brings with it deep assumptions which we can now see to be related to ideas underlying 'secularism': i.e., the whole idea of reasoned discourse about God/religion suggests the possibility of a common intellectual framework or set of tools for investigating, comparing and evaluating traditions - an idea with a strong affinity for a 'secular' worldview in which religions are seen as particular choices, set within an overarching religiously neutral public sphere.
* Even those who pursue this discourse as a way of deepening their commitment to and expertise in their own tradition, perhaps even so as to become promoters and propagators of it, often do so in a way which underlines this same 'secular' atmosphere - by assuming the communicability of their religious views (as explored and explained by theological discourse) within a neutral intellectual market-place.
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)
replies: text: I think we are communicating extremely well, and your summary of those issues is good enough to include in text. IMHO we should now think about how to structure the article and, keeping the distinction between issues of substance and the article's modality, how to best represent the various caveats. All I can say is that we can be both substantive and artful in finding a balance which touches enough on the issues to best relate the concept's general shape. But in a basic sense, we are encumbered by the paradox of secular and religious language and their inability to adequately describe this very paradox of terms within their own respective terms. My solution has been to simply employ the usage of a spectrum of terms, which offer a sense of the scalar relationship between discrete ideas in secularism, versus transcendent ideas in spirituality. For example in good and evil, I defined knowledge of "truth" by relating it to human value, sanctity, and divinity. While divinity itself should rightly raise some secular objections, human value is an important secular concept, and these two are tied together by the concept of sanctity (inviolability). Ie. the trick is in using terms which have a balance between secular and religious usage. More later. -Ste|vertigo 19:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: PS: Relate mysticism. -Ste|vertigo 23:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  part. 

message: 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)
replies: text:  Theology, as a concept of study with somewhat indefinite boundaries, has a place in the pantheon of human arguments along with logos (appeal to logic, reason), ethos (appeal to ethics), pathos (appeal to emotion). Of course theology is also related to the religious concepts of ministry and prophesy, and we can thus make some statement about the nature of these relationships. (Note the term "may refer to" qualifies the following statement about the relationships as likewise indefinite - this indefinite topic itself does not allow for more precise statements about its nature, save how it relates to other concepts. This is simply explaining a relationship between theology and philosophy.)
# "Dont think the Mencken quote is at all helpful" - Well its probably more "helpful" than the one I was going to use: "Evangelical Christianity, as everyone knows, is founded upon hate, as the Christianity of Christ was founded upon love." 
Thanks, from America. - Ste|vertigo 03:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Mah, welcome back. Looks like you started with an older version, rather than the rewrite as based on your criticism, along with the criticism of TT. The lede, while perhaps satisfactory for an elementary overview, is sadly bare and seems based on burying the sophistication of the topic rather than revealing it. I like some of the way you handled the issue of secularism, but you basically buried it, rather than deal with it, and substituted the concept of Graeo-Roman culture as if it were substantively descriptive. It is not. Theology represents an island of philosophy-like study centered around particular points of view, and as such its framework is not just inclusive of rationality, but somewhat parallel to it. As both you and TT stated, theology is not "secular." Its very existence is of course influenced by empirical and secularist concepts. Otherwise it would be called "theocracy." Note that while youre defining theology as something which has pan-religious application, you use God captial "G" and the word Christianity (in variants) four times. One only has to look toward religious philosophy, mysticism, or concepts of religious law (as in Buddhism, various, and Islam, for example) to understand that theology is more localized, and this requires a description of that localization's foundation. Note also that various phrases are clunky and too informal: "might be", "or with a view to", "taken up", "that lies behind", "various aspects both of the process which," etc. "rational analysis" is also out of place; this isnt philosophy of mathematics. 
-Ste|vertigo 01:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ABSOLUTELY AWFUL! 

message: 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.
The word 'theology' has classical Greek origins, but was slowly given new senses when it was taken up in both Greek and Latin forms by Christian authors.  It is the subsequent history of the term in Christian contexts, particularly in the Latin West, that lies behind most contemporary usage, but the term can now be used to speak of reasoned discourse within and about a variety of different religious traditions.  Various aspects both of the process by which the discipline of ‘theology’ emerges in Christianity and the process by which this now Christian term is extended to other religions are highly controversial.	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.
As Western theological traditions have developed according to predominanty Christian and Jewish beliefs, study and discourse may be directly tied to localised forms of evangelism. Students in theology often seek to become religious clergy.
In certain systems, the expressions of theologians may be regarded afte time as part of a religious canon, or else cited as authoritative interpretation at a particular time. 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.
Theologians may help clarify religious differences, translate localized religous traditions and beliefs into  abstractions and generalisations which have more universal meaning, or otherwise represent the views of a particular system or tradition within current religious debates.
If a few more of the words were linked I would prefer Mah's version. --Totalthinker 19:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Linkage is good, particularly in the lede. Concepts must be defined by reference to other concepts after all. -Ste|vertigo 15:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Side by side 

message: This section is tagged as needing a cleanup. I have added .
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)
replies: text: I will delete it soon if there are no objections meantime. Slackbuie 19:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Id suggest not deleting anything, but expanding intelligently on whatever needs expanding, rewriting things which need clarity, and editing things which need fixing. Too many people come to Wikipedia with notions that pruning is more vital than planting. -Ste|vertigo 07:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: Substituted at 15:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment