> On 1 Nov 2019, at 20:43, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 11/1/2019 3:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> I think that the early educated christians were neoplatonist, and they were >> quickly fighting against the radicals who claimed that the legend of Jesus >> should be taken literally. > > In others words religion doesn't mean what the dictionary says. Theology > isn't what theologians write about.
Of course theology is what theologian wrote above, but since 529, theology has been mixed to “politics” by force and violence, so we need to translate what they are saying, as they could easily been burned alive if talking to freely. The same happened with genetics in the USSR or on shorter time scale. The communist would have succeeded in making the whole planet communist, geneticians would claim that chromosome does not exist, and that would still be “genetics”, and the dictionary would say that Lyssenko is the great genetician who debuted the so bourgeois theory of chromosome and genus. When you abstract form the institutionalised religion, but even with them if you look closely, theology is the right term in Proclus' theology, and the arabs have translated "Plotinus theology" by “Aristotle theology” and knew the difference between fake political theology and the theology done by the thinker in Greece and India, and that one is very close to the theology of the universal machine (the unknown truth about a machine, including what they cannot prove, but intuit, guess, etc.). > And Christians aren't those people who claim to believe in the Christian > bible. I was talking of the early neoplatonist christians, those who were following the course on Hypatia, at a time when theology was still a science. Jesus and all that was just a popular fairy tales account, but for the intellectual, it was like “theology at the maternal level”, and most were reasoning when considering the fundamental questions. Why do atheists keeps defending the idea that theology is only the naïve account made into politics fr obvious tyrannic reason. > And Bruno agrees with Humpty Dumpty. All scientists do. When I was asked to use “psychology” instead of “theology”, I made no problem. Eventually I calme back with the term “theology” because I was obliged to distinguish between three level of reality (biological, psychological and theological) with the usual common sense definition of those words. If you prefer, we can define theology by the study of the afterlife, but this will seem even more crackpot, like new things always look like. Forget the vocabulary, and let us come back on the substance (pun included). I really suggest people to study “Proclus’ theology” or “Plotinus (who avoid that term). And the best books on this are written usually by christians. If you can find an English version of Jean Troiullard’s book “L’un et l'âme selon Proclos” I recommend it a lot. That is book where the similarity between computer science (and the logic of self-reference) and the greek-indian theology strikes the eyes. Bruno > > Brent > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/df9344dd-2fd1-d4d4-1131-7a13ece45e6b%40verizon.net. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0E973357-D4F4-4C12-8743-86F33C5F219E%40ulb.ac.be.
