And still, when one writes theology, one can't just write anything and be considered legit. If the very idea of theology has any meaning at all - it must be considered "the science of God." The best thing about this: this is the worse thing that could happen to theology. And still, any theologian of merit ought to reject all forms of hermeneutics or interpretive scholasticism as non-scientific nonsense. Weber, Popper, Gellner... these should be the heroes of theology.
And... if science is limited to rigorous empirical methodology... much of what we now call science would have to be cast to the flames.
And I believe paganism was finally outlawed by Rome in 407. Although I might be wrong.
I recall that you said hit 'em where it hurts, regardless of the truth. Why not call theology a science then? - and adhere, as a critique, to the strictest positivism out of sheer determination.
ken ---------
Well, yes if science is limited to a rigorous empirical methodology, there would be a much brighter light cast from the funerary pyre of the Other. And, I am afraid I feel like adding quite a lot to the cleansing flames. But a science of god? Where's my lighter fluid?
So theology takes god as an hypothesis? And, we can go back to counting the trinity as theory? Ahh, Ken, the trinity hasn't been a theory since the councils of Nicaea (340s?) declared it everlasting truth---for the self-ingratiating purpose of serving court power in Constantinople, as far as I can tell, and so as to isolate the western Arianizing fence strattlers and depreciate Antioch and Alexandria as rival cultural and political centers of power---that, and firming up their patriarchs against the monist rabble in the streets---and of course displacing paganism which must have started to sound like an enlightened liberalism, despite the fact it was probably only held by a rival but declining power elite. Obviously theology had more meaning back when its controversies drew blood and winning was counted in corpses and empires. [Then again, maybe this hasn't changed all that much if you count positions on abortion and Palestine as theology]
[I don't know why I like reading about late antiquity so much. At first I thought it was because it was the fall of Rome---dreamed as the fall of capital. But that isn't all. It is filled with reversals, betrayals, assassinations, civil wars, last minute shows of promise, and all the slow motion beauty of monumental collapse. It's a like watching ancient history done as cinema noir.]
I still don't really understand your personal desire to see theology trashed. I mean, I don't believe it to be anything but babble. On the other hand, I wouldn't take much pleasure in mocking it, or maybe I would, if I had to listen to it everyday. I get the impression you want this stuff to die a horrible, meaningless second death at the hands of a neo-Enlightenment analysis for some reason. So let's hear the reason.
Wouldn't be nicer (listen to me, waxing liberal) to consider theology more an historical and cultural study, where different threads of development are seen as reflecting cultural, social, economic and political history? This is more along the lines of what I would be interested in reading, given of course I didn't have to swallow the actual contents.
Why am I arguing for a scholastic humanist approach to theology? I feel like I am playing Erasmus to your Machiavelli.
Here is something a lot people don't realize and that is Berkeley has more churches per square block than just about anywhere I've ever heard of. I live within a ten minute walk from four protestant churches, maybe two catholic churches, at least two synagogues I can think of, a buddhist temple, a well armed hare krishna sect, and a some weirdo vegetarian ashram. My voting precinct is in the basement of the Christian Science Church around the corner. The Graduate Union Theological Seminary is about a fifteen minute walk from here. It has a great bookstore and library. Berkeley is paved in theologies. You stumble over them everywhere, and of course the namesake doesn't help.
Chuck Grimes
PS. Sorry about the delay. I was out fishing yesterday. It was the first trip out of the Bay since June. The weather has raised hell with the ocean--of course its the other way around. Anyway I caught two big salmon, thirty-two and thirty-three inches. They were a lot heavier than last year's and they fought like they were going to hell and didn't deserve it. After cleaning they were turned into eighteen steaks, six filets, and two heads for stew. I checked the grocery store prices while buying freezer bags. The filets are going for 7.99/lb and the steaks are around 5.99/lb, with lox at 22.xx something a pound. I must have about forty pounds worth. I put the filets up with fresh dill and salt, pressed them together with bricks on top of wax paper to make lox for sandwiches. You know both rabbinic and christian theology could learn a lot more from fishing than reading pomo and trying to wrestle that discourse into some even less coherent rant. That effort strikes me to be like some of existentialists efforts to re-introduce god through the backdoor of a phenomenology of conscieousness.