Re: MD Philosophy and Theology

From: Elizaphanian (
Date: Mon Apr 07 2003 - 11:04:55 BST

  • Next message: Elizaphanian: "Re: MD Philosophy and Theology"

    Hi Scott, all,

    > The status (intellectual or social) of myths and symbols is not the issue
    > here (I too see them as having social origin and utility). The question is
    > whether or not *theology* is an intellectual activity. Theologians
    > on* and *interpret* the myths and symbols of their religion, not just
    > them.

    Thank you for saying this. I was beginning to lose track of my bearings. I

    > (Note that word "always" in the third to last sentence. As Sam said: "What
    > is claimed by Christians is that it is compatible with reason, that there
    > are no ultimate contradictions in the Christian faith." He should have
    > excluded those Conservative Protestants, though.)

    It's true that I have a problem with Conservative Protestants (the problem
    is - how to distinguish between conservative Protestantism and

    > That is, Bultmann's project has come under criticism because he was too
    > modern, that is, too SOM-ish. A contemporary theologian is more likely to
    > treat Christian myths more or less as Campbell does. In sum, the Bible is
    > seen as telling a lot about God (and people) mythically, while theologians
    > attempt to translate that telling into something the intellect can handle.

    And also to defend the value of mythology against SOM-ish modernism.


    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 07 2003 - 12:05:10 BST