Why are we incapable of leaving Theology to Theologians?

[Brand Name Sex]

As of recent, I've found more and more people are taking a greater interest in either defending their religion or picking on various other religions. Now, I'm not saying it's wrong to have a religion, mind you, but I must say that so many people now a days are trying to interpret things and seem to be going about it the wrong way.

So you can quote the Bible, Koran, etc.? Does that make you smarter than everyone else? No, it doesn't. It just proves you're able to memorize things, that's all it proves. Granted some people do understand what it is these passages are trying to convey, but not a lot of people do and thus the go about their merry little way quoting passages they have NO right quoting.

Therefore, I say we should leave Theology to Theologians. So unless you're looking to BE in that field of study, why bother trying to translate something you know nothing about? Not everyone can KNOW everything, and trying to sound like you do makes you sound like a complete moron. It's a two sided coin my friends, and odds are you'll end up with the side that makes you seem like an imbecile.


Therefore, I have to ask the following.
Do you often find yourself quoting things?
Should we leave things to be interpreted by true scholars?
Religion:
People who act as if they know everything:
Etc:  

[rlimbaugheib]

That's like saying that government decisions should only be made by politicians, and that the people should have no say, because they are "not qualified".

As for interpreting religion, it is sad when noble religions are twisted into justifications for crimes, such as Al-Qaeda's interpretation of the Koran. What you are suggesting is that people ought not be allowed to so much as think certain things about religions, and that no one should be allowed to "label" them. That falls under Freedom of Speech, so it's not up for debate, unless you want to oppose the Constitution, in which case, you ought to be brought up on charges of treason.  

[rlimbaugheib]

Also: What makes scholars an exception to your rule?  

[Brand Name Sex]

I firmly belief the common man really shouldn't dabble in the affairs of politics and religion, especially considering how the majority of them don't understand what's going on. It may be bias, but why not leave matters in the capable hands of higher officials? No, it's not promoting democracy, but in all reality who actually feigns interest anymore in the world that surrounds them?

Nothing makes scholars an excpetion to my rule, I'm sorry if I phrased it incorrectly.  

[bfdhshsgvjggh]

I wish I could quote things off the top of my head. It'd be great to flatten someone with a quote from Tolstoy or something.


The issue of religion has always been a touchy subject. This is not exclusive to my case, but also in the case of many others. Primarily because there are a lot of people in the world who want to talk about existentialism and suchwhat, and do question their own existence frequently.

The problem with religions and I guess what you can call "anti-religions" (IE - aetheism and such) is that there are always people, Theologists or otherwise, that follow their personal bushido like maniacs and want to spread "the good word" to everybody. Obsessive Christians want to save everybody, outrageous Aetheists want everyone to "grow up", mad Muslims want everyone to get the ******** out of their country and want everyone in their country to not go anywhere near the West, Buddhists don't really care either way, and so on. To them, to those self-proclaimed experts on worldly whatnot, I have only this to say:

"Shut up and let people believe what they want to believe."

My stance on religion is that everybody is right and wrong in their own way, shape and form, and the sooner we all admit that, the better we'll all be. Just because someone worships Higher Forces a different way from you, just because someone is a polytheist over a monotheist, just because someone actually has a faith to begin with, doesn't mean that they are any less of a person and doesn't mean that they are ignorant, naive, megalomaniacal, "peace-hating" scallawags.


As for people who claim to be experts on religion or worldly events, I shrug my shoulders and say "feh". In my mind, 45-50% of all people who claim to be experts on anything aren't actually experts, they just like to hear themselves talk and like to hear people say how smart they are. On the other hand, 45-50% of them are not experts but well on their way to being there, and are a lot more honest than the other half. Leaving things to the hands of true experts is often better than leaving it in the hands of the inexperienced, the whole "chimp with an A-Bomb" argument comes into play here, but sometimes someone who has little to no prior experience or knowledge of the matter might actually have something profound to say on the subject.


So, those are my thoughts. You want fries with that?  

[rlimbaugheib]

Quote:

unless you're looking to BE in that field of study, why bother trying to translate something you know nothing about? Not everyone can KNOW everything

Yes you did, you said it right there.

And here

Quote:

Shouldn't we leave things to be interpreted by true scholars?

What you're saying is that in order to say anything about ANYTHING, you must know EVERYTHING about it. You also say that it is impossible to know everything, then doesn't that rule apply to you? If you were abiding by your own rules, you would not have made a post to begin with.

Your logic is deeply flawed on the matter. Your knowledge of the nature of our country and the source of our prosperity is obviously non-existant; you seem unaware that nations that are content are more efficient, and nations which foster the ideals of freedom, including the right to choose a leader based on a democratic process, are more prosperous. History has proven the idea of totalitarionism to be ineffective and inconsistant with human nature and deleterious to the people ruled under such a regime.  

[CleverScreenname]

To me, that's like saying "leave reading books to the english majors!" Anyone can read a passage from The Odyssey and get what they want from it. Pretty much all literature is open to interpretation, and that includes the Bible and other religious texts as well. Sure, theologists are probably better at figuring out what the Bible means, but the quotes in all of those books are so broad and vague, and most of those books have ben translated so many times that the text gets changed and twisted, so they could mean absolutely anything.

And besides, people are and should be free to argue about whatever they want, I think what you're looking for is for them to realize that they could be wrong.  

[Zphal]

I think you are partially wrong and partially right.

Of course everyone is entitled to interpret things (especially religion) their own way in the United States. It's why our forefathers came over.

Although, everyone hates a know-it-all, and listening to them can get downright frustrating! People have a right to voice what they believe (its a constitutional thing), but they shouldn't go around preaching if they aren't a preacher... unless the other person(s) listening either wanted to hear it, or asked to hear it.

I converted my husband into a Christian. I didn't do so by quoting the bible, or making him read the bible, or blathering about Christian crap all the time. I voiced my beliefs when I saw it applicable, and over the course of a year and a half, he came to accept it too.  

[Cornelius loh Quatious]

It looks like most people hit the main points I was going to say, so I'll just fill in.

Everyone should have their own right to speak their opinion. Granted, there are going to be people who know more about the subject than you, and it's their perogative to correct you should you say something false. What matters is that people realize that they don't know everything, and they take other people's viewpoints into account.

The problem isn't people being know-it-alls, it is people not stopping to hear the other side of a debate. I certainly don't trust everything someone has to say, but if they defend their argument in a clear and logical manner, than I am more inclined to believe them.

The tricky thing about religion is that nobody is going to have any real answers. Unlike science, which can experiment and log data and results to back up opinions and theories, religion is pretty much open to interpretation by whomever. Every piece of religious literature has to be translated from its original language, then translated again, and again, etc. Many meanings are lost in translations, and many translators put their own spin on things according to their personal opinions and bias. Short of God himself (assuming he exists) coming down from the heavens and telling us exactly what he meant for us and how we should do things, people are going to have their own way of interpretting their religion. They might gain some insight as to how the holy texts read by learning and studying theology, but any theologian will tell you that in the end, it's up to you to decide how to interpret them. Some people take the books literally, others believe they are metaphorical.

It's all up to each person to decide how they want to believe.  

[Trippetta]

Okay, how about a short answer to the main question there?

Because, we naturally form our own opinions about just about everything. Just because some people turn it into a profession doesn't mean the rest of us can't take a crack at it...

Yeah  

[Shokushu]

The reason we don't leave it to the theologists is because it's part of our lives - just as you don't let someone walk into your home and start rearanging all of your things you don't let them walk into your religious beliefs.
But religious beliefs aren't physical like houses are- they're spiritual. They are symbollic. Just by saying that things work a certain way you are stepping on these symbols-
While it seems as though the question is whether or not what those symbols represent is worth devoting yourself to it is really whether or not you can agree to let other people have their own beliefs. Most of the problematic religions have passages that tell the followers not to step on other people's beliefs but the followers conveniently ignore them.  

[Laurelothandune]

Boy, I would hate to have some scholar tell me, "Believe this, I studied theology." We argue it because it is what is true for us, our lives. Not just a field to study. I would hate to not be able to defend what I belive. Sure, some people are idiots. But idiots are always gonna be there in every field. So they quote the Bible, oh well. It's what they believe. Sure people tell me my religion is sending me to hell. All the time it happens. The point is if you actually believe in what you say you believe none of that should matter to you anyways. So tell me I am going to hell, I TRUELY don't believe it, so oh, well. Ignorance is everywhere, but to say to leave it to people who have money to buy other peoples opinions on it is insane.  

[Megell]

Before I begin I would first off like to make a general apology for a few things, first my poor spelling and grammer. secondly the fact that I only perrused the prior posts so I could place some important facts on the table. off of the prior apologies I would like, if I may, call a certian point to 'Brand Name Sex''s attention that has disturbed me quite deeply. not too point a finger in any sense at all, but I feel that the topic "should we leave the thology to the theolegians" is in essence a counter productive topic to ask for several reasons. The first being the self exploration of faith.

Point one:
The idea of religion is discovery of the God(s), and in many cases the words this entity has written down for us is very unclear. Take the bible for instance, if we look at it in its most litteral forms then we have to accept the following truths. first off the world is just under seven-thousand years old and it was created in seven days. However, science, and common sense tells us that this idea is absurd. thus without reflection we must either except one of the following, either the bible is wrong, science is wrong, or there is a greater answer of which we are unaware. however like before with reflection all the sanity we have tells us this premiese is not viable, because of its sophesty, so there must be an alternative.

I would like to call your attention to the idea of religious interpretation or not taking everything at face value. then instead of saying that the bible or science is wrong, you can say that the bible isn't wrong, but mearly is using a type of interpretation to show a message. A 'parable' or 'moral story' If I dare put a term to it.

Thus if we apply this to the creation story, we might come to the conclustion that it is a parable that explains the power, and glory of the almighty. To summerize, if we anaylise the bible we can find that there are cases in which it is not historically, nor sintifically perfect, yet these stories tend to teach us something about what the christians view as their god.

Now, I admit that I have strayed from the orginal topic of leave the theology to the theologans, but I must contend that my purpose has substanance in fact that by analising the bible I have learned something about faith threw the philosophy of theology. Now my point is, without the use of theology, I would have never been able to come to my conclustion about the creation story, which is a parable. I myself am not a theologain, but rather a simple man with simplistic ideas; a fool if you would. Yet my premise of dismissing the creation story as parable is non-the-less true. therefor, if I may, I will put forward the following assumptions:
1) Religion and science seem to contradict.
2) If science contradicts religion, I put forward that one is either slightly, or completely incorrect unless we assume what I will now refer to as parables, or moral stories.
3) threw these assumptions even a simple fool, such as myself, can learn something about god, faith, or morals.

Point 2
yet, by no means does this conclude the arguement, therefor I must take it in a different direction. I would wish to call plato to the table, yet I fear that his name may distract you from making your own descisions on the topic, which by no means do I wish to choose for you. however, I feel that ultimately I must call on platos brilliance.

Plato, threw socraties concludes a good is growth, (the meno) therefore I set this a a premise for the following argument: theology, as I mentioned breifly is a philosophy, and philosophy is a science is a causes the growth of mind, therefor I conclude that theology is good.

Point 3
but whats does this prove? the answer is everthing. I wish to call another figure who said that the good is the ultimatle goal, I believe it was aristotal, yet I am unsure, either way the point who said it is irrelivant. the point itself is brilliance.

1) Because theology deals with moral and spirtual growth it is good.
2) People are always in search of the good.
3) theology is usefull to all
4) I conclude that because of this, theologys good, is good for all.
5) all people should study theology for personal growth, good.
6) Theology should not be left to theologians, therefor I conclude.

Point 4

However, I must say that there is an exception to this, any theology that does not lead to personal growth is not good. therefore should not be studied. In common day aplication it would be using redhoric and misinformed opinions to sound correct. Because under my theroy, the right kind of theology for us, must lead to personal growth, not bigitory.  

[Hyratel Dragon]

Refering to Megell's post, above, I feel that my opinion is worth hearing. To start, what middle-shool student knows the ins and outs of the big bang theory? Anyone? Okay then. Tiny speck, quark-gluon plasma, blablabla. Now, if you look at the creation theory as a timeline, wothout dates, it makes a whole lot of sense next to the big bang theory as a timeline, again without dates. There are a number of hard-to-miss parallels in there. This makes me think that many of the parables, etc, in scripture, any scripture, are dumbed down science, so the laymen in the audience could understand, and who 8000 years ago might have understood stellar mechanics, and sub-atomic physics? Please comment.  

[ChirpingGlory]

I wholly agree with what Ever-Infamous Kojiro-san said. I'm no good with words and putting my thoughts INTO words, so I'll leave it at that to avoid making myself look dumber than I already have.