From: Elizaphanian (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Mon Apr 07 2003 - 11:04:55 BST
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
*comment
> on* and *interpret* the myths and symbols of their religion, not just
repeat
> them.
Thank you for saying this. I was beginning to lose track of my bearings. I
agree.
> (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
fundamentalism).
>
> 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.
Sam
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 07 2003 - 12:05:10 BST