Talk:Theology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Theology article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.
To-do list for Theology: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
    Archive
    Archives


    Contents

    [edit] Proposals for redistributing material

    I propose: (a) To remove the 'Christianity' template (b) To move the material on divisions of theology, which is very largely exclusively Christian material, to the 'Christian theology' page (c) To move the material on the controversy surrounding the emergence of Christian theology to the 'History of theology' page This page should, presumably, be even-handedly about all the contemporary uses of the word 'theology', which is no longer confined to Christianity; it has to give the Christian history of the term, but should not then imply that 'theology' is now synonymous to 'Christian theology'.

    Any objections? --mahigton 11:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Pages for development

    Can more detail be added to Women as theological figures (see comments on talk page) - including an introduction.

    Religion and politics also needs development - some of the areas could be moved to separate pages (of the "X and politics" format), leaving this as the hub page, and for discussions on the topic in general.

    Both could be linked from this page.

    I have reached the limits of my theological knowledge with both fields.

    Jackiespeel 30 January 2007 (this library terminal won't let me sign in)

    [edit] Links section

    Given that there are pages elsewhere for Christian theology etc, and that this article is now clearly focused on (a) the history of use of the word 'theology' and (b) aspects of its contemporary usage that are relevant to more than one religious tradition, am I right in thinking that links on this page should not be to resources for Christian theology (or any other particular theology) but to

    1. resources directly related to the changing definition of theology in history (not simply examples of theological writing from history), and
    2. contemporary discussions of the nature of theology that directly address multiple religious traditions; or
    3. contemporary discussions of the nature of theology that, while focused on a particular religious tradition, clearly treat ideas that will have a relevance to other religious traditions; or
    4. contemporary discussions of the nature of theology within one religious tradition that explicitly challenge its applicability to other religious traditions; and
    5. nothing else.

    Is that fair? --mahigton 22:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Archive bot?

    Should we maybe think about archiving this talk page? --Selket Talk 07:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

    Done, see Archive 1. From the date stamps I see on the article it looked like 2003 through 2006. I also added several talkpage templates. Although I am not a botOptigan13 17:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Theologian vs. theologist

    Both of these terms redirect here, however only theologian is mentioned in the article text. Wiktionary has different definitions for these terms, albeit not very clearly delineated (wikt:theologian wikt:theologist). Perhaps this article should contain a brief discussion and clarification of these terms with respect to one another? __meco 09:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] not sure it's uniquely problematic

    The section discussing theology and the academy claims its role is "uniquely" problematic, because of how for example it tries to balance academic discourse with within-a-faith viewpoint and practical involvement. This might be problematic, granted, but it isn't uniquely so; other areas of academia, such as Marxist theory and feminist theory, share similar issues with fitting an activist, practically involved viewpoint into academia. --Delirium 10:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] "Quotations" section

    More quotations in favour of theology and/or theologians can be found here [1]. This site supports intelligent design. I'll leave it to your judgement. --85.73.241.86 06:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Cartoon/Focus

    Am I the only one who thinks the cartoon at the bottom of the page lampooning theology is completely irrelevant and inappropriate? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. If someone was looking for information on the subject, how would that cartoon help anyone? It just seems ill-advised and juvenile. Emailnuevo (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)emailnuevo

    Actually, the whole section "Quotations" (that includes this image) is inappropriate in Wikipedia, since it should go to Wikiquote (per WP:NOT#DIR). I am going to add the template indicating this. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 13:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    Until this section is moved there, could somebody make it more balanced?--85.72.157.191 (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Imaginary Friend

    Obviously not pertinent to a serious discussion of theology. Christian Left (talk) 14:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Sankara.jpg

    Image:Sankara.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

    Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

    If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

    BetacommandBot (talk) 04:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Criticism

    We need some criticism of the study in most American universities. It is too Christian biased. 65.102.200.170 (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

    So I guess the Pope visited America and spoke with the heads of every major Catholic university just to say "keep up the good work"? It seems as though you are blinded by your presuppositions.
    Besides, since when would an encyclopedia article include information based on a single anonymous individual's experience? This is why Wikipedia is nonsense. In addition, half the article's edits are by atheists or similar (for the article on THEOLOGY). No bias in Wikipedia? Please. 64.252.160.124 (talk) 02:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Relevant?

    "Even when it is distinguished from these other disciplines, however, some hold that the very idea of an academic discipline called theology, housed in institutions like Universities, is an inherently secular, Western notion.[citation needed][original research?] Noting that 'reasoned discourse about religion/God' is an idea with a very particular intellectual pedigree, with at least some roots in Graeco-Roman intellectual culture, they[who?] argue that this idea actually brings with it deep assumptions which we can now see to be related to ideas underlying 'secularism': i.e., the whole idea of reasoned discourse about God/religion suggests the possibility of a common intellectual framework or set of tools for investigating, comparing and evaluating traditions - an idea with a strong affinity for a 'secular' world view in which religions are seen as particular choices, set within an overarching religiously neutral public sphere. They argue that even those who pursue this discourse as a way of deepening their commitment to and expertise in their own tradition, perhaps even so as to become promoters and propagators of it, often do so in a way which underlines this same 'secular' atmosphere - by assuming the communicability of their religious views (as explored and explained by theological discourse) within a neutral intellectual market-place."

    Now I ask, why is there an entire paragraph based on a definition of theology held only by Wikipedia? Since when is theology known as 'reasoned discourse about religion/God'? Why include an entire paragraph which is not only complete, uncited speculation, but bases its entire argument on a random definition?64.252.160.124 (talk) 02:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)