[MD] False Messiah

[Scott Roberts]

DMB,

Scott said:
I notice the only theist you quote is Tillich. And he, of course, is a good
example of what I am trying to say, namely that theists are changing away
from the sort of stuff that the rest of these quotes are objecting to. Given
that Tillich is probably the most influential Protestant theologian (except,
perhaps, Barth) of the 20th century, I don't think one can say this is an
isolated sentiment. So I repeat: theism is changing, you're not.

dmb says:
Actually, the Tillich quote is critical of "theism" as I'm using the term.
(Belief in a transcendent or supernatural creator) As I understand the term,
he's not a theist and is on the same page with Campbell and Wilber in this
criticism of theism.

Scott:
Well, there are millions of people who say they have faith in God, and whose 
thinking is more or less like Tillich's. It seems that you only are aware of 
two positions: literalist-type theism and non-theism. In any case, this 
discussion has no future, as long as you insist on using 'theist' in the way 
you do. Millions of theists don't use it that way, but that doesn't seem to 
matter to you.

DMB continued:
 In fact, Wilber was quoting Tillich and relating that
to Campbell's definition of this problem. (That part is pasted below.)
Notice how he is contrasting immediacy and "real religious experience" with
the "interventions of God" and "the supernaturalistic heritage".  That's the
difference between mysticism and theism, between living truth and dead
dogma. I think that's what Tillich, Wilber, Campbell, Pirsig are saying, as
well as many others that I didn't quote but will if you like. I think
Tillich is on my side of this argument against theism in saying that God is
not supernatural or other and that Thou Art That. The idea here is that,
against theism, you are not supposed to be granted salvation by a
supernatural act of divine intervention or the deeds of the unique
historical incarnation of God, but rather to experience a realization, to be
the Christ, to commit that central heresy against theism. I don't know.
Maybe Tillich has to call himself a theist in order to keep his job or maybe
the term means something else to him, but as I see it, he's an anti-theist.
Do you think this might be a way in? Shall I use your approval of Tillich as
wedge to crack the notion that my criticisms of theisim are unfounded? Does
Wilber's use of Tillich and Campbell to make this point make my sources more
persuasive.

Scott:
I've never said your criticisms of certain aspects of historical theism are 
unfounded. What I've been saying is that theists (those like Tillich, that 
is, liberal Christians) are just as critical of past theism as you are. What 
I'm objecting to is your saying that theists are intellectually bankrupt, to 
your being anti-theist, as if anyone who says they have faith in God (as 
Tillich certainly did) is to be automatically excluded from the intellectual 
marketplace. As I said, the problem is with the way you use the word 
'theism'. If theists are changing it, then you are the one who is out of 
step. When it gets to the point that you call a leading *mainstream* 
Protestant theologian, author of a 3-volume work called "Systematic 
Theology", of another book called "The Dynamics of Faith", etc. a 
non-theist -- well, why should anyone take you seriously?

DMB said:
 Did you know that Campbell translated the Upanishads and edited
the Portable Jung? Did you know Wilber was the most translated American
thinker (something like 20 languages) and you can get a Ph.D. in his work
from places like Harvard? My point? These guys aren't bad. They don't suck
too much. Dismissing their perspectives outright seems a bit unreasonable.
Anyway, here's where Tillich came together with two of my favorite
thinkers....

Scott:
I've never thought that these guys are bad. And I'm hardly dismissing a 
non-theist perspective, being a non-theist myself. But I also don't think 
that Tillich, Rahner, Lonergan, Bultmann, etc. are bad either, even though 
they say they have faith in God.

- Scott

Paul Tillich A HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN THOUGHT p374 (as its quoted by Wilber)
>"Things like miraculous interventions of God, special inspirations and
>revelations are beneath the level of real religious experience. Religion
>itself is IMMEDIACY [by which he means precisely the immediacy of basic
>Wakefulness or pure Presence, which is Spirit IN us, as Tillich himself
>makes very clear]. The supernaturalistic heritage about the suspension of
>the laws of nature for the sake of miracles collapses completely."
>
>All these Ken Wilber quotes come from SEX, ECOLOGY, SPIRITUALITY: The
>Spirit
>of Evolution, and these can be found on pages 667-9:
>"Both Tillich and I are referring to the mythic components of Christianity,
>not to its psychic and subtle level direct realizaton, many of which
>approached a pure nondual understanding (as we saw with Teresa and Eckhart)
>Rather, it is the translation downward into 'mythic dissociation'
>(precisely
>as defined by Campbell) that I am here discussing, becasue this mythic
>dissociation, particularly in regard to the Incarnation and Ascension, came
>to thoroughly define essential Christianity, divorced it from other
>religions, and set an entire tone for the culture it would subsequently
>define. God created this world, but our final destiny can be found nowhere
>in this world (the classical Ascending ideal of mythic dissociation)."

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/