Sells,

Where does the British Monarch sit? Is it rational that there be a Defender of the Faith based on birth, rather than scholarship? Should we serve a Monarch and salute a flag?

Regards,

O.

Waterboy.
If theology is not some kind of rational discourse it is not discourse at all but a collection of experiences or feelings. Certainly theology is faith seeking understanding, which means that we begin from acceptance rather than scepticism. Liberalism begins with scepticism and demands that the atomistic self is the judge of all things. Faith thus becomes impossible. Christian theology is liberal in the sense that it is open to any questions and its authority is what is left after all of the questions are answered. But in all of this we must be willing to be led by the hand into the thought of the Church trusting and questioning at the same time.

Some forms of faith should be disregarded. For example I think that there is something very wrong with the theology of creation that makes God the generator of the physical world instead of the one who calls us into life. Theology is constantly in need of reform.

Oliver.
I regard the queen as the head of the Anglican communion to be a historical accident that cannot be condoned

Sells,

"Certainly theology is faith seeking understanding, which means that we begin from acceptance rather than scepticism."

"Theology is constantly in need of reform."

What happens when rational thought leads us to a need to reform that which we began with acceptance of?

"I regard the queen as the head of the Anglican communion to be a historical accident that cannot be condoned"

One can take the same view of the pope and Catholicism.

"I regard the queen as the head of the Anglican communion to be a historical accident that cannot be condoned." - Sells

I agree. Yet she, maintains the pretending. It would nice if all could inherit our ancestors awards. Charles, I have heard once considered the idea of Defender of the Faiths [plural]. Or, was that just a media beat-up?

Hankins notes the French Revolution [1789], as the exercise of the liberalism, occurred after many key philosphers had died {e.g., Diderot, d'lemebrt, Condiallac, Voltaire, Rousseau and --Turgot--.

The choas did not co-incide with the overthrow.

Anne Robert Jacque Turgot of "Discourse sur les progres succesifs esprit humain," famein council to Louis XVI on parliament [parlement],
when parliament was principally about judicial bases for taxes and not people:

The clergy, the nobility, and the parliaments are "jealously guarded prerogatives", which seek to extend their powers with little thought for the state".

"The course of evil, Sire, goes back to the fact that your nation is a society comprised of different orders badly united, and of a people in which there are but very few social ties betwen the members. In consequence, each individual is occupied only with his own interest ... " {1774, Trans. Hankins in Hankins 1985}

The cause of this bastardised individualism would seem rest with social, religious and political institution that derived power from "historical rights and intrests" not natural rights. Herein, I feel, the Enlightenment [Endarkenment to you and religious folk] sought break-down the power of authorities, Kings & Church Leaders, "by examining what our ancestors did in times of ignorance and barbarism". {1774, Trans. Hankins in Hankins 1985}

Turgot is accredited with introducing the term, "social science", which post the revolutionary period slowly gave us a "better" individualism and put Church and State rightfully their place - under us. But it is not over, yet. The Pope still claims infalliability and their is a House Lords in England. My money is on the Pontifs outlasting the nobles' house.

We see two "individualisms", before and after the Enlightenment. Ours I suggest the superior.

Sells?

-re- Oliver, Monday, 21 January 2008 6:15:39 PM. What do you think? Individualism before and after the Enlightenment?

-oops- there not their.

- As usual a good topic for debate/discourse.

Cheers.

O.

"An uncritical and positive view of the Enlightenment is orthodoxy at Australian secular universities to the extent that few have departments of theology even though the history of the West is unintelligible without such knowledge. Even so, history departments throughout the land teach Medieval history in the absence of any teaching that carries a sympathetic view of the central place of Christian theology in the societies studied." - Sells from anoth Article

Not necessararily so. Some historians would say the Pope moderated in the conflicts between Monarchs: The Church having religious power familial mafias/royalty. Maybe, not well but the Pope was above an Emperor, an Emperor above a King and King above Prince. The heirachary, far from perfect, perhaps, more consolidation than today's UN?

The Enlightenment brought Attic Greek [thought] to the West [via Byzantium/Spain]. It was powerfully good, because it ultimately showed to learn, how to learn. Theory captained practice, rather than trial and error. Interpretation of political, scientific and religious matter become public property not governed by the few as Turgot (above] notes. It advanced the Renaissance.

Faith and Disbelief ar both commitments. "Binary classifiers" suggest either position is first approached via null hypothesis of the person belief held