Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

chavos · 09-02-2003, 10:19 PM

and now, for a slightly unrelated semantics lession.

1. Kerygma: Public teachings of the church. Doctrines which are widely known, and taught to converts and unbelievers. Can be expressed rationally.

2. Dogma: Traditions and teachings which are the product of internal searching. Known to community of believers alone, personally and non-rationally revealed.

That's the original terms...the west has forgotten the first, and hijacked the second.

Anyhow, that's part of the issue here. There's a conflation between the logical and rational public teachings, and the truths that believers come to over their journeys. I blame televangelists for this, but that's just me. But over all, there is a sense that the public teaching "jesus died for your sins" or "allah is the prophet" or "YHWH delievered our people" or "Bhudda found nirvana" or whatever...will contain enough content to radically reshape the unbeliever. Pardon my french, but this is bullshit. The mysteries of God are not just suddenly revealed by a few public teachings, rationally expressed. People come to understanding though their life, as their faith matures...usually though questioning, adversity, tripumph, and the panoply of human experience.

So, what's this got to do with anything? Science has infringed on kerygma(what you probably think is dogma), as i define it above. The rational, systemic theology does often run head long in to rational systemic science. And the skeptic says that they've disproved religion. But the thing is that the public teachings are, IMO, nothing more or less than metaphors...ways of expressing unexpressable things. We're trying to talk publicly about a subject that defies definition and rationalization, and so we come up with ways of talking about it. Science does religion a favor...it is an iconoclast, that breaks apart the idols of literalism...making us remember that our metaphors, our "God is like a..." statements, are just that...that we didn't get to define God with our words...we just tried to get a little bit of that reality down on paper.

PS...a reminder to those who say religion does not have a trial and error, hypothesis and test model like science...i would strongly suggest a review of church history. Despite the best attempts of the western latin church, both the Eastern and protestant traditions, not to mention catholic dissenters did carry on with heterodoxy...what might be called heresy. I just cannot agree with the idea that religion is not a search for answers...it defies the study of church history, christian or not, it defies the current trends and methods of theology, christian or not, and defies the experience of believers around the globe, christian or not. To assume that because some religious sects focus on stability and easy answers, that all are like this is a logical fallacy...

09-02-2003, 10:19 PM	#154 (permalink)
chavos Banned Location: St. Paul, MN	and now, for a slightly unrelated semantics lession. 1. Kerygma: Public teachings of the church. Doctrines which are widely known, and taught to converts and unbelievers. Can be expressed rationally. 2. Dogma: Traditions and teachings which are the product of internal searching. Known to community of believers alone, personally and non-rationally revealed. That's the original terms...the west has forgotten the first, and hijacked the second. Anyhow, that's part of the issue here. There's a conflation between the logical and rational public teachings, and the truths that believers come to over their journeys. I blame televangelists for this, but that's just me. But over all, there is a sense that the public teaching "jesus died for your sins" or "allah is the prophet" or "YHWH delievered our people" or "Bhudda found nirvana" or whatever...will contain enough content to radically reshape the unbeliever. Pardon my french, but this is bullshit. The mysteries of God are not just suddenly revealed by a few public teachings, rationally expressed. People come to understanding though their life, as their faith matures...usually though questioning, adversity, tripumph, and the panoply of human experience. So, what's this got to do with anything? Science has infringed on kerygma(what you probably think is dogma), as i define it above. The rational, systemic theology does often run head long in to rational systemic science. And the skeptic says that they've disproved religion. But the thing is that the public teachings are, IMO, nothing more or less than metaphors...ways of expressing unexpressable things. We're trying to talk publicly about a subject that defies definition and rationalization, and so we come up with ways of talking about it. Science does religion a favor...it is an iconoclast, that breaks apart the idols of literalism...making us remember that our metaphors, our "God is like a..." statements, are just that...that we didn't get to define God with our words...we just tried to get a little bit of that reality down on paper. PS...a reminder to those who say religion does not have a trial and error, hypothesis and test model like science...i would strongly suggest a review of church history. Despite the best attempts of the western latin church, both the Eastern and protestant traditions, not to mention catholic dissenters did carry on with heterodoxy...what might be called heresy. I just cannot agree with the idea that religion is not a search for answers...it defies the study of church history, christian or not, it defies the current trends and methods of theology, christian or not, and defies the experience of believers around the globe, christian or not. To assume that because some religious sects focus on stability and easy answers, that all are like this is a logical fallacy...