It is poor argumentation to rely on scripture heavily. Scripture can be used to prove anything.

Some have post huge quotes from scripture which it is usually ignored and uses up space.

Christians should try to study the science of theology so that they can demonstrate truths with only minimal scriptural quotes.

Thomas Aquinas pointed out that Theology is a science. The psuedo-scientists of the modern world are likely to reject this in order to maintain their false world view.

If theology is the rational and systematic study of religion, why are there no atheist theologians?

Or are there... ?

. Scripture can be used to prove anything.
amen bro..
which means its completely useless ;)

Christians should try to study the science of theology so that they can demonstrate truths with only minimal scriptural quotes.
ROFL...
you may want to look up the meaning of the word SCIENCE... :rolleyes:

Thomas Aquinas pointed out that Theology is a science. The psuedo-scientists of the modern world are likely to reject this in order to maintain their false world view.
Aquinas was a morron then,,and only Theology can be classified as pseudo-science.

It is poor argumentation to rely on scripture heavily. Scripture can be used to prove anything.

Some have post huge quotes from scripture which it is usually ignored and uses up space.

Christians should try to study the science of theology so that they can demonstrate truths with only minimal scriptural quotes.

Thomas Aquinas pointed out that Theology is a science. The psuedo-scientists of the modern world are likely to reject this in order to maintain their false world view.Science is the investigation of the natural world through empirical observation. When has any theologian ever performed a “religion experiment”? Something isn't necessarily a science just because it ends in "ology".

Hi there. Theology is not the study of religions. It is the study of divine being. Religion is a manner of binding oneself to What/Who is Eternal. Therefore, each religion may have several kinds of theology, each of which aims at understanding divine being, that is, the source of all that is.

Christian theology starts from the revelation of divine truths handed down in Tradition and Scripture, and uses philosophic language to understand it.

Christian theology differed from all other forms of Theology which preceded it, first, because it said that God was a personal divinity, not like 'The Force" which is antithetical to that reality, and because it claimed that humans have an inability to fully explain divine mysteries, like the Trinity, but nevertheless insisted on its reality.

Science is a body of knowledge gained not from empirical evidence alone, but from reasoning as well. Have you ever tried to understand the data of science without using reasoning power?

No science is independent from philosophy, not entirely, (and hence theology), because there must be a foundation to base the knowledge (em piric) and a system to validate that what is known is truly known and knowable. Science depends on data collected from the five senses, which have been proven to be sometimes mistaken.

Therefore Science is not any more certain on an empirical level than Religion.

Theology reasons to conclusions based on Revelation, which must be accepted by an act of Faith. In this case, Revelation takes the place of Empirical Data.

Science is a body of knowledge gained not from empirical evidence alone, but from reasoning as well. Have you ever tried to understand the data of science without using reasoning power? It’s true that science makes use of reason, but empirical observation is still necessary for something to be considered a “science”. That’s what differentiates science from things like mathematics and philosophy. In philosophy you simply sit around thinking about the world, trying to figure things out with reason. However, if you ever come to a conclusion that you can actually “check” by making an observation in the real world, then you have stopped doing philosophy and started doing science (assuming you bother to actually check). No science is independent from philosophy, not entirely, (and hence theology), because there must be a foundation to base the knowledge (em piric) and a system to validate that what is known is truly known and knowable.This is true - science has a philosophical base. But that doesn't mean that ALL philosophy is therefore a kind of science.
Theology reasons to conclusions based on Revelation, which must be accepted by an act of Faith. In this case, Revelation takes the place of Empirical Data.And that is exactly why theology is not a science.

It is poor argumentation to rely on scripture heavily. Scripture can be used to prove anything.

ONLY, when when one has not read the Bible through entirerly. In actuallity the stardards used to determine the historical accuracy of texts, like the Iliad, provide more support for the reliability of the Bible than any other historical book.

Christianity is almost completely full of pagan DNA. "holy scripture" about Krishna and Horus are much more accurate then the bible.

"Theology is a science." Thomas Aquinas

Think how much hubris there is in disagreeing with this:

1) You are disagreeing with one of the greatest theologians since Christ. Who are you? What degrees do you have? Any in Theology?

2) One might say that Medicine is not scientific, since doctors rely very much on intuition and methods of healing on a molecular level they dont fully understand. Yet, if a doctor told you that you needed healing or you would die, would you not seriously consider his words?

How much weight would you put into a doctor's opinion if that doctor did not have a medical degree?

All the same, today, people in their madness say that they can design their own theology and scoff at the learned teachings of priests and ministers.

(words of healing to be accepted eventhough it may be bitter medicine)

"Theology is a science." Thomas Aquinas"Theology is not a science." Me.
Which is more correct?

Can you decide purely from the words above?
No.
Just because Thomas Aquinas said what he said does not make it true.
Just because I said what I did does not make it true.

You decide for yourself whether Theology is a science or not.

You decide for yourself whether Theology is a science or not.

Deciding something for yourself is not always the appropriate action. In certain things, personal things, you must decide for yourself, praying for God's guidance.

However, in cases where there are things which are above your comprehension, it is better to consent to the wisdom of those whose knowledge is expert.

Auto mechanic is above my expertise, therefore I consent to the knowledge of mechanics who know what is wrong.

Many mechanics are out to get my money, therefore I have sometimes needed to risk in trusting an unknown mechanic. It would be better if I could just keep returning to the same mechanic.

The hierarchy of the Church is like the master mechanics school. To listen to a priest learned in human problems and theology would be like having a mechanic whose both a fixer and engineer.

Pray for God's guidance in this matter so that you may discern the truth.

Deciding something for yourself is not always the appropriate action. in cases where there are things which are above your comprehension, it is better to consent to the wisdom of those whose knowledge is expert.rubbish! but you would or should still ask questions, you take nobodys word for it.
just because your not a mechanic, you should ask question just so you now next time, unless of course you a sheep, then you'd follow without question.
when I pick a movie to watch, I take no notice of what the critic says, that only his opinion, I like to decide for myself whether it's any good.

you cant discern truth from that which does on exist, and this is my opinion.

Thomas Aquinas pointed out that Theology is a science.The methodology of science is repeatable experimental evidence. One begins with a hypothesis. Then one designs a controlled experiment to test this hypothesis. If the experiment verifies the hypothesis one continues to devise other experiments.

If at any point the evidence refutes the hypothesis then one first examines the controls of the experiment to check for uncontrolled variables. If there are none then one must either change the hypothesis to allow for the new evidence or discard the hypothesis as untrue.

If over many repeated experiments, the hypothesis is consistently verified and never refuted by the results it may be considered a theory. The more supporting evidence, the stronger a theory it becomes.

If Theology is a science then, to date, is has failed to provide a single theory. All of its hypotheses have thus far been refuted.

~Raithere

If Theology is a science then, to date, is has failed to provide a single theory. All of its hypotheses have thus far been refuted.

~Raithere

Your Science as it stands in reality: First come up with a theory, like Evolution, then try to prove it by observable data, fail, and then devise elaborate supportive sub-pseudosciences, theories, and philosophies about strata and the age of the earth and the origin and purpose of Man. Use propaganda such as nature shows to repeat the now "Law" of this theory over and over on TV.

Theology is a science which has a reasoning methodology. It is a science that does not subject its findings on proof for validation of its "hypotheses", but rather on the authority of the Church.

Your Science as it stands in reality: First come up with a theory, like Evolution, then try to prove it by observable data, fail, and then devise elaborate supportive sub-pseudosciences, theories, and philosophies about strata and the age of the earth and the origin and purpose of Man. Use propaganda such as nature shows to repeat the now "Law" of this theory over and over on TV.*buzz*

I'm sorry. But you seemed to have confused Science with Christian fundamentalism.

Please don't try again. You haven't the faintest clue what you're talking about.

Theology is a science which has a reasoning methodology. It is a science that does not subject its findings on proof for validation of its "hypotheses", but rather on the authority of the Church.In other words it is full of logical fallacies. I concur. Well, except for the "reasoned methodology" part.

BTW have you guys been able to figure out just how many angels can dance on the head of a pin yet? I know you've been working on that one for a while.

~Raithere

*buzz*

I'm sorry. But you seemed to have confused Science with Christian fundamentalism.

~Raithere

The Science of Theology uses reason drawn from logical irrefutables and non-contradictories to come to a deeper understanding of God and Reality.
It CHECKS its findings against the Truths already known to be factual from Church Tradition and Revelation.

Christian Fundamentalism, a kind of christianity that takes the scriptures literally on every point, does not use this method to come to its teachings.

They do not employ the Science of Theology, but only select findings which match its limited understanding, such as the Trinity. They have no authority by which to compare their private interpretations.

I now refer you to the great theologian himself, who explains his idea much better than I can. Please read carefully...


WHETHER SACRED DOCTRINE (THEOLOGIA) IS A SCIENCE?
Objection 1. It seems that sacred doctrine is not a science. For every science proceeds from self-evident principles.
But sacred doctrine proceeds from articles of faith which are not self-evident, since their truth is not admitted by all: "For all men have not faith" (2 Thess. 3:2). Therefore sacred doctrine is not a science.

Objection 2. Further, no science deals with individual facts.
But this sacred science treats of individual facts,
such as the deeds of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and such like.
Therefore sacred doctrine is not a science.

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. xiv, 1)
"to this science alone belongs that whereby saving faith is begotten,
nourished, protected and strengthened."
But this can be said of no science except sacred doctrine.
Therefore sacred doctrine is a science.

I answer that, Sacred doctrine is a science.
We must bear in mind that there are two kinds of sciences.
There are some which proceed from a principle known by
the natural light of intelligence, such as
arithmetic and geometry and the like.
There are some which proceed from principles known
by the light of a higher science: thus the science of
perspective proceeds from principles established by geometry,
and music from principles established by arithmetic.
So it is that sacred doctrine is a science because it
proceeds from principles established by the light of a higher science,
namely, the science of God and the blessed. Hence,
just as the musician accepts on authority the principles
taught him by the mathematician,
so sacred science is established on principles revealed by God.

Reply to Objection 1. The principles of any science are either in
themselves self-evident, or reducible to the conclusions
of a higher science; and such, as we have said,
are the principles of sacred doctrine.

Reply to Objection 2. Individual facts are treated of in sacred
doctrine, not because it is concerned with them principally,
but they are introduced rather both as examples to be followed
in our lives (as in moral sciences) and in order to establish
the authority of those men through whom the divine revelation,
on which this sacred scripture or doctrine is based, has come down to us.

It sounds to me like the science of theology is still just trying to make the "Word of God" come out right. Which is it? You'd think God himself would have made sure that it came out right for every newborn on the planet. At least give everyone the right set of rules to go by to see that they at least had a fair chance of leading a worthy life. C'mon now, get real. :o

It sounds to me like the science of theology is still just trying to make the "Word of God" come out right. Which is it? You'd think God himself would have made sure that it came out right for every newborn on the planet. At least give everyone the right set of rules to go by to see that they at least had a fair chance of leading a worhty life. C'mon now, get real. :o

The Science of Theology does not try to perfect the meaning of Sacred Scripture, it is mearly a vehicle for understanding it.

The fact that God himself walked on earth and established the Church, insuring its integrity in matters of Faith, means that God wanted us to share the word to future generations. It is Man's resposibility, not God's, to make sure every new person will be able to have a chance at "getting it right".

Your Science as it stands in reality: First come up with a theory, like Evolution, then try to prove it by observable data, fail, and then devise elaborate supportive sub-pseudosciences, theories, and philosophies about strata and the age of the earth and the origin and purpose of Man. Use propaganda such as nature shows to repeat the now "Law" of this theory over and over on TV.
HA HA you just described Creationistm.. :rolleyes:

while on subject of evolution ...its a FACT how it happens is a THEORY
read
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Theology is a science which has a reasoning methodology. It is a science that does not subject its findings on proof for validation of its "hypotheses", but rather on the authority of the Church.
bullshit..Theology is NOT a science,its a philosophy..
it INVENTS answers to how everything happened,and has no fng way to PROVE any of its claims,
as your buybull book full of contradictions and inconsistencies and total FICTION proves see
www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

theology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology#Theology_and_the_philosophy_of_religion

Lawdog,

Before I answer that, let me ask you another question, just so I know where you specifically are coming from. Don't feel obligated to answer; I'm really not trying to set you up. On second thought, I'll go ahead and say what I want to say and then you can answer with a response if you like.

If it's Man's responsibility to make sure as many men and women hear the Word of God as possible, doesn't that make God a bit capricious. I know the Bible says God is a jealous God, but it's just not logical to say that God is the Light and a God of Mercy, if he doesn't care enough to make sure ALL of His children have a fair chance at being saved. "Man," if anything, screws most everything up, and if He exists, He knows that. He is supposed to be omniscient, omnipresent and whatever other omni you want to throw in, not to mention the alpha and the omega. If he wants to put the burden on us, then I say fine. But He has to know that we will screw it up, and thus many of his children will go to Hell because of His negligience.

My question to you, though, is do you believe in Hell? If so, what form does it take?

CT3000

Cottontop: "If it's Man's responsibility to make sure as many men and women hear the Word of God as possible, doesn't that make God a bit capricious."

Thats a fair Question. The Church answers this way:
It is Man's responsibility, we are responsible for one another.
Why? Christ wants us to share in his salvific work.
He has already paid the debt for sin, yes.
However, each of us he invites in the joyous and glorious
work of Salvation (different than Redemption).
Salvation occurs each time someone in
Christ dies and is saved (not before then).
Redemption (payment for sin) occured only once.

By uniting our personal suffering with Christ Crucified
we earn graces which help in
the Salvific work of bringing souls to God.

God knows that generally Man will screw this
invitation up royaly by sinning. In response
to this, He floods the world with
abundant graces and makes sure
as much as human free will allows
that everyone has a chance to hear
God's Truth and accept it. He cannot
interfere in our Free Will, so if I decide that
X pagan should not hear the Truth,
God allows this sin to occur,
and the person might never hear
about Christ. That would be on My Soul,
not the pagan's.

Lawdog,

Yes, but what about the one little starving child in Africa that nobody get's a chance to minister to? Is he/she doomed to Hell because of the oversight? Or is there an exception clause in the Bible that I do not know about?

Also, I really would like to know your opinion of Hell. I've heard so many different interpretations over the years.

CT3000

Lawdog,

Yes, but what about the one little starving child in Africa that nobody get's a chance to minister to? Is he/she doomed to Hell because of the oversight? Or is there an exception clause in the Bible that I do not know about?

Also, I really would like to know your opinion of Hell. I've heard so many different interpretations over the years.

CT3000

The starving child in Africa is as Christ
Jesus: "For as you do unto these least ones, you do unto me"

Therefore, we should give aid to
countries in need, to the best of our circumstances.

Hell is, unfortunately, real. Its not a scare tactic.
Christ is continually warning us about it in sacred scripture

I should try to concentrate on God
and his wonders and sublime goodness instead.

Seriously Lawdog, you need help - and I mean "real" help, not "voices in your head" kind of help.

Lawdog

Do you have a degree in theology?


http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0552139505/qid=1118559237/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_10_1/026-5509471-1304404

Synopsis
This is a controversial account of Christ's life which challenges accepted Christian doctrine. Basing her theories on 20 years of close study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gospels, the author propounds that Jesus was the leader of a radical faction of Essene priests; that he was not of virgin birth; that he did not die on the cross; that he married Mary Magdalene, fathered a family, and later divorced; and that he died sometime after 64AD.

From the Back Cover
Jesus was the leader of a radical faction of Essene priests. He was not of virgin birth. He did not die on the Cross. He married Mary Magdalene, fathered a family, and later divorced. He died sometime after AD 64.

This controversial version of Christ's life is not the product of a mind which wants to debunk Christianity. Barbara Thiering is a theologian and a biblical scholar. But after over twenty years of close study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gospels she has developed a revolutionary new theory which, while upholding the fundamental faith of Christianity, challenges many of its most ingrained supernaturalist beliefs.

Jesus the Man will undoubtedly upset and even outrage those for whom Christianity is immutable and unchallengeable. But for many who have found the rituals of the contemporary church too steeped in medieval thinking, it will provide new insights into Christianity in the context of the 1990s.

http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/0552139505.02._PE20_SCMZZZZZZZ_.jpg

[QUOTE=Lawdog]The starving child in Africa is as Christ
Jesus: "For as you do unto these least ones, you do unto me"

Therefore, we should give aid to
countries in need, to the best of our circumstances.

But DOES this child go to hell because she hasn't accepted Christ as her personal savior when she dies at age 7 from starvation or a death squad in Sudan? I don't think you've answered this question adequately.

Hell is, unfortunately, real. Its not a scare tactic.
Christ is continually warning us about it in sacred scripture

How can you possibly say that this is not a scare tactic? It preys upon some of our deepest fears. Fears that might not reside in our minds but for this. Can you imagine not being raised with this fear? What LIFE might be like?

I should try to concentrate on God
and his wonders and sublime goodness instead.

How about the wonders and goodness of men, women and children that were raised without the fear of burning in a lake of fire for eternity? Instead of going through life worried that you are unworthy of salvation, how about going through life knowing that everything will be okay, regardless of how you decide to live your life? Knowing that each and everyone of us is a God in our own right, and capable of so much more than blind submission to a Jealous God? Less worry; more hope for the future of mankind as a whole, versus the future of only the priviledged of mankind. Atheists, Agnostics, Unbelievers, Freethinkers and Infidels can, and do, live by a set of ethics and morals that not only benefit mankind, but exlude God and "His" scare tactics.

Where will it get us? Who knows? Maybe the stars someday.....! Maybe our own version of Heaven in this universe. Maybe the only version we might ever get a chance to know, if you and yours are wrong. Who knows?

Therefore, we should give aid to
countries in need, to the best of our circumstances.

Why should we? Why doesn't your Christ help them? Whe doesn't he answer their prayers?

Those who do not live in third world nations are continually thanking their lord for the abundance they receive - why then should the third world nations not receive the same abundance?

Lawdog

Do you have a degree in theology?

Jesus the Man will undoubtedly upset and even outrage those for whom Christianity is immutable and unchallengeable. But for many who have found the rituals of the contemporary church too steeped in medieval thinking, it will provide new insights into Christianity in the context of the 1990s.

http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/0552139505.02._PE20_SCMZZZZZZZ_.jpg

I am working on getting a degree.

Respectfully, I dont think we should look our noses down on the medieval period. Anyone that does so, especially a scholar, betrays ignorance. Medieval scholars in my opinion, though their were less literate folks back then, were more advanced than scholars today.

Anyway, the premise of this book you show is trying to discover the real Historical Jesus, as if our vision of Jesus had been skewed by thousands of years of Christians trying to make Jesus out in their own way.

This immediately smacks of faithlessness. As if to say: Jesus is not a living God or the Holy Ghost does not guide men into a true understanding of the personal life of Jesus, throughout history. God has no power speak through the Traditions of the Church concerning himself.

Thats just one objection, and respectful of where you may be at in your discernment of Christ, nevertheless, also remember, that even if Jesus were married, do you think his teachings woulkd be any different?

I also cant understand why it is that anyone would think that the rituals of the Church are too medieval. I go to Church these days and all the Medievcal rituals are gone, to my horror, there is nothing mystical or sublime in worship, especially the music.

But DOES this child go to hell because she hasn't accepted Christ as her personal savior when she dies at age 7 from starvation or a death squad in Sudan? I don't think you've answered this question adequately.[/QUOTE]
No, that is contrary to God's mercy.



[QUOTE]
How can you possibly say that this is not a scare tactic? It preys upon some of our deepest fears. Fears that might not reside in our minds but for this. Can you imagine not being raised with this fear? What LIFE might be like?



How about the wonders and goodness of men, women and children that were raised without the fear of burning in a lake of fire for eternity? Instead of going through life worried that you are unworthy of salvation, how about going through life knowing that everything will be okay, regardless of how you decide to live your life? Knowing that each and everyone of us is a God in our own right, and capable of so much more than blind submission to a Jealous God? Less worry; more hope for the future of mankind as a whole, versus the future of only the priviledged of mankind. Atheists, Agnostics, Unbelievers, Freethinkers and Infidels can, and do, live by a set of ethics and morals that not only benefit mankind, but exlude God and "His" scare tactics.

Hey, we might have been raised with this fear, but at least we had loving parents and cereal for breakfast. Starving African children might not have either.

Without this fear, my life would be one horrible self destructive
sin after another, I would have done great evils by now,
and probably have my own jet. what can I say? Thats me without
God's teaching. Also, why bother to worship or follow God, after all,
if Hell doesnt exist, he did not save us from anything terrible.
(This is what Jehova Witnesses believe).

Starving African children might not have either.

Clearly, the work of your god.

Without this fear, my life would be one horrible self destructive
sin after another, I would have done great evils by now

Then you have truly abondoned all reason and rationale and are unable to think for yourself.

Q, Why the hostile sounds?

Christ answers peoples prayers, not, for example, by making food magically appear, but through his mercy that dwells in the hearts of those who provide.

Christ answers peoples prayers, not, for example, by making food magically appear, but through his mercy that dwells in the hearts of those who provide.

So, he offers less mercy to Africans?

Q, Why the hostile sounds?

Ignornace and contradiction.

"Theology is a science." Thomas Aquinas

Think how much hubris there is in disagreeing with this:

1) You are disagreeing with one of the greatest theologians since Christ. Who are you? What degrees do you have? Any in Theology?

And what degree did Aquinas have? :rolleyes:

2) One might say that Medicine is not scientific, since doctors rely very much on intuition and methods of healing on a molecular level they dont fully understand. Yet, if a doctor told you that you needed healing or you would die, would you not seriously consider his words?

How much weight would you put into a doctor's opinion if that doctor did not have a medical degree?

All the same, today, people in their madness say that they can design their own theology and scoff at the learned teachings of priests and ministers.

(words of healing to be accepted eventhough it may be bitter medicine)

The beautiful argumentum ad verecundiam. Ever so impertinent when used in matters where who holds the title of 'greatest theologian since Christ' varies widely.

Try again.

Aquinas had a Doctorate of Saced Theology from the University of Paris.

Fear of God is the Beginning of Wisdom.

My argument is not "Ad verecundiam" because that refers to relying on the opinion of false authority.

In all matter of faith and morals, as well as tradition,
rites, and custom, as well as ethical matters
involving scientific investigation (what limits should be set
and what methods are ethical or not),
The Catholic Church is the only lawful Authority,
solely appointed by God for this purpose,
whose union is signified by her singular Pontiff,
the vicar of Christ on Earth
and her teachings are the fullness of Truth,
without flaw or error, they are NOT mere opinion,
nor are they misled by psuedoscience.

Lawdog,

Fear of God is the Beginning of Wisdom.But fear is the weapon of the terrorist and the tyrant.

But more accurately fear of the god concept is indeed the beginning of wisdom since to believe in such things instead is the epitome of ignorance and false hope, the very antithesis of wisdom.

Lawdog,

In all matter of faith and morals, as well as tradition,
rites, and custom, as well as ethical matters
involving scientific investigation (what limits should be set
and what methods are ethical or not),
The Catholic Church is the only lawful Authority,
solely appointed by God for this purpose,
whose union is signified by her singular Pontiff,
the vicar of Christ on Earth
and her teachings are the fullness of Truth,
without flaw or error, they are NOT mere opinion,
nor are they misled by psuedoscience. In reality and in history the extreme arrogance and unilateral declaration of perfection by an unelected body almost certainly indicates the exact opposite is true.

Cris, you search for Immortality,
but we who believe have found the source
from which Eternal Life may be obtained.
Do you think that your Pride in Humanist doctrines
may be blinding you to this,
and to a healthy fear of the Lord?

My first reaction was that theology is not a science, but then I thought if psychiatry is the study and treatment of mental disease why not?

As far as Barbara Thiering is concerned I believe she is to be congratulated for proving that Jesus was just a man who has been used by a bunch of power seeking mentally diseased 'humans' to hoodwink the credulous .

may be blinding you to this,
and to a healthy fear of the Lord?why is it you people, cant seem to crasp the fact, that an atheist has no believe in gods/god devil/demons etc..
you cannot fear that which does not exist, that is for the irrational believers.

oh and incidently having a fear of a thing, certainly is not healthy, that is an oxymoron.

why also would you fear your so called god of love????.

The Science of Theology uses reason drawn from logical irrefutables and non-contradictories to come to a deeper understanding of God and Reality.I'd be interested to hear about and discuss these "logical irrefutables and non-contradictories".

It CHECKS its findings against the Truths already known to be factual from Church Tradition and Revelation.And what about the "Truths" already known to be factual through other religions?

So it is that sacred doctrine is a science because it proceeds from principles established by the light of a higher science, namely, the science of God and the blessed. Hence, just as the musician accepts on authority the principles taught him by the mathematician, so sacred science is established on principles revealed by God. Augustine, is basing his argument on a premise that he has yet to provide proper argument for. The question is not; assuming "sacred doctrine" is true, is theology a science. The question is whether or not "sacred doctrine" is true in the first place. The rest of the argument is irrelevant until this point is determined. The comparison of perspective and music to geometry and mathematics is irrelevant at this point.

~Raithere

Hell is, unfortunately, real. Its not a scare tactic.
Christ is continually warning us about it in sacred scripture

Non sequitur. Just because Jesus speaks of Hell doesn't make it 'real', as upposed to 'unreal'. And just what do you mean by 'real'? Do you mean it 'exists'? If so, what do you mean by 'exists'. These are terms grounded in empiricism, remember?

"Theology is a science." Thomas Aquinas

Think how much hubris there is in disagreeing with this:
Fallacy no. 1: Aquinas said "theology is a science". Of course he said no such thing. He said something in Latin which has been translated as "science". But the modern meaning of science is remarkably modern. So the argument here is of people defending the modern definition of science against a 1,000 year old theologian.

Fallacy no. 2: Aquinas being the greatest theologian in Christianity does not mean that everybody, even in Christianity, agreed with every word he said.

As a matter of fact, I agree with Lawdog's original point. Religion is not adequately defended by scripture. And my principal objection to a lot of the supposed "Christian Right" and other breeds of Fundamentalism in the United States is that they simply don't have any theology. Over on water's thread regarding the acceptability of beating off a rapist versus turning the other cheek, I seem to remember Adstar being quite inflexible and dogmatic about following what Jesus said to the letter. My suggestion that he discuss it with his pastor was met with a declaration that all he needed was the holy word of Scripture. My feeling is that a priest would never countenance not fighting back against a sexual attacker for a woman. Or at least the vast majority would not.

You still are not hearing me: There are many Sciences, (Latin=scientia) its just that Modern Science has taken the main title because of its remarkable improvements in daily life (technology). However other sciences are just as valid and use DIFFERENT METHODOLOGY. They are still sciences.

Evidently you didn't hear me .... that's what I said - that we're arguing over semantics about something a guy referred to as "science" when the word simply did not have the same meaning back then, eight hundred years ago. (Science as we now know it didn't really exist yet, beyond the mathematical and geometric discoveries of the ancient Greeks.)

For non-empirical "science" such as theology and other relevant disciplines such as history and papyrology, I prefer to use the term "scholarship". Scholarship uses evidence but is more subject to interpretation of the evidence and reliant on an overall consensus. Different theories have to rely on argument and debate a little more than most mainstream science (though science is not without exactly the same kind of differences and arguments, of course). That does not preclude theology being based upon some kind of rationalism.

I just wanted to add something to the effect of, please don't read anything into Barbara Thiering's work. That she has an accredited post as Professor of Theology at an Australian University absolutely astounds me. Her theories are based on interpreting the entire New Testament as a pesher of supposedly post-Crucifixion events in the early Christian church, and have absolutely no merit. I have attempted to read her second book Jesus of the Apocalypse and she believes that hidden in the text of Revelation is a day by day account (fully dated and sometimes timed) of the doings of the Essene sect. At least with Revelation, you could certainly claim that it is a pesher (or code) of some kind. But her theory began from the concept that the Gospels were pesher. And pesher through and through - not one word is supposed to be literal, it's all symbolic! This is arrant nonsense.

A well argued critique of Thiering's work can be found here (http://www.anchist.mq.edu.au/251/Thierful.htm).

THE best work you can find on The Book of The Apocalypse was written some fifty years ago by a catholic priest named Kramer. The book is titled THE BOOK OF DESTINY by TAN publications.

I say its the best, for those who believe in real prophecy. He really convincingly demonstrates great knowledge of the symbology.

I dont think the word scholarship really fits what Aquinas was describing, especially today with so much psuedoscholarship. I think that for him, the theological science is advanced by study as much as by contemplation.

Anyway, I suppose my original point will not convince anyone of anything because theology became so wacky in the last century anyway. I think the Church should have silenced certain theologians, and well she did, but after the sixties it seemed not to matter.

Lawdog, as you might or might not have gathered, I'm quite interested in discussing theology as a subject in itself, but maybe I'm less well informed than you are. I would be grateful if you could post a short summary of the various "wacky" theologies of the last century of which you speak. I personally do not consider different sects to be based on theology - mormonism, adventism, Jehovah's Witnesses aren't "wacky" theology, they're totally false and invalid theology.

Anyway, I suppose my original point will not convince anyone of anything because theology became so wacky in the last century anyway. Well, let's return to all but one sentence of your original post:It is poor argumentation to rely on scripture heavily. Scripture can be used to prove anything.

Some have post huge quotes from scripture which it is usually ignored and uses up space.

Christians should try to study the science of theology so that they can demonstrate truths with only minimal scriptural quotes.I totally agree with every word!

You still are not hearing me: There are many Sciences, (Latin=scientia) its just that Modern Science has taken the main title because of its remarkable improvements in daily life (technology). However other sciences are just as valid and use DIFFERENT METHODOLOGY. They are still sciences.It seems to me that the only methodology involved is an argument from authority.

As you stated, "Theology is a science which has a reasoning methodology. It is a science that does not subject its findings on proof for validation of its "hypotheses", but rather on the authority of the Church."

What methodology is involved then besides checking with the authority? What if you have multiple sources claiming authority? What if the authority changes its opinion? What if the authority issues conflicting statements? How are these things resolved?

~Raithere

Well there's were we run into problems. So Theology either has only one authority by which it can check its findings, or it is useless.

As a science, if you will call it that in the broad sense of the term, it treats of the supernatural, and of things not provable or testable by sensation.

Therefore if there is indeed any valid theology, its findings can only be understood in light of a supernatural authority.

Lawdog, as you might or might not have gathered, I'm quite interested in discussing theology as a subject in itself, but maybe I'm less well informed than you are. I would be grateful if you could post a short summary of the various "wacky" theologies of the last century of which you speak. I personally do not consider different sects to be based on theology - mormonism, adventism, Jehovah's Witnesses aren't "wacky" theology, they're totally false and invalid theology.

Well, let's return to all but one sentence of your original post:I totally agree with every word!

Those religions which you mentioned are problematic in their core belief systems. Their theology is entirely different, and their theology does not consider it self a science.

Anyway, there are also some theologies which arose in the 20th century which claim to be christian, even catholic, but which are not, and go contrary to long established traditions of christianity. Of course that does not make them false in the eyes of most people, but rather, inherent contradictions and truisms do.

Some names? Well, I could tell you some names but I will not, because I only know their writings by second hand accounts Ive read. My own knowledge of them is not certain enough. However, much of what passes as contemporary theology is really biblical scholarship based on an idea of a historical Jesus. It has nothing to do with systematic or moral theology.

Which is, of course, palpable nonsense, Lawdog. Theology is the work to understand what was written in the Bible in an attempt to figure out an actual doctrine. Most of it was done and dusted centuries ago, but continued discussion of points even if they've already been doctrinally settled, is still a worthwhile activity. Where it falls down is where the "supernatural authority" is supposed to have come from (meaning how was it expressed?). Dogma states that all doctrine, whether determined upon by council or committee, or promulgated by one man (papal infallibility) is inspired by the Holy Spirit. But really it consists of people arguing back and forth and either a consensus being reached, or someone making a decision.

Still waiting on that paragraph on what crackpot theology you were talking about in your previous post.

Your view is overly sceptical, and your last sentence betrays a mistrust of any divine authority established on earth for the good of Man.

Also, Theology is not just for understanding the bible, one practical aim it has is to establish truths not always evident in reading scripture, such as the Trinity or Purgatory. Human logic is the gift of the Creator with the intention that it be employed for such endeavors.

There is much room left for further exploration of the divine mysteries, provided that the theologic method is used and the conclusions do not go against the magisterium

Lawdog, you claim Purgatory is a "truth". What is your reasoning behind this conclusion?

P.S. You still haven't answered my questions in this thread or the other.

Your view is overly sceptical, and your last sentence betrays a mistrust of any divine authority established on earth for the good of Man.In my view there is no such thing as an "overly" sceptical view! :D I mistrust so-called Divine Authority because it emanates solely from Men.

In case I've misrepresented myself, I am a non-believer who nevertheless is very interested in religion and theology - what religion says about itself, rather than what individual Christians and Muslims who come on the boards say about their religion (which tends to differ from person to person). So lets have a serious talk about theology, you and I!

Certainly one must posit the existance of an apple in order to discuss the nature of the apple.

In my view there is no such thing as an "overly" sceptical view! :D I mistrust so-called Divine Authority because it emanates solely from Men.

In case I've misrepresented myself, I am a non-believer who nevertheless is very interested in religion and theology - what religion says about itself, rather than what individual Christians and Muslims who come on the boards say about their religion (which tends to differ from person to person). So lets have a serious talk about theology, you and I!
Your interest in the field is admirible and your scepticism not unmerited. I recommend perusing Aquinas' Summa. A copy is availiable as an ebook on my site www.lulu.com/MythicTome.

Since there are no other sources to understand and read or discuss theology and such other than from men, (and women), then you will just need to accept that limitation.

Religion exists. The Bible exists. Theology exists.

EDIT, since I missed your second post.

I do accept that limitation. It seemed like you were the one who didn't. Thanks for the link to the Summa, I'll try to check out parts of it as and when I can.

Here's a direct link to a free copy: http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/home.html