[MD] False Messiah

[david buchanan]

Scott and all MOQers:

dmb said:
...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 said:
Well, there are millions of people who say they have faith in God, and whose 
thinking is more or less like Tillich's.

dmb says:
Millions? On what basis do you make that claim? I'd like to see some poll 
numbers on that. I have a book that loaded with surveys on religious 
attitudes, but I don't think I've seen anything like that. But let's assume 
there are 10 million Tillichs out there, that would still be a tiny fraction 
of one percent. My criticisms would be aimed at the remaining 99%. As for 
the Tillichs, they aren't the problem. You are responding as if I said there 
was no such thing as an intellecually respectable position on the topic of 
spirituality when in fact that is what I'm trying to present. Like I said a 
couple of times already, bring them. The more the merrier.

Scott said:
It seems that you only are aware of two positions: literalist-type theism 
and non-theism.

dmb says:
This is another version of that same straw man. Just because I'm making a 
distinction between two positions does not mean that there are only two 
positions. Nobody said any such thing.

Scott said:
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 says:
Again, I quoted the dictionary to show that my use of the term is completely 
normal. I'm only using the standard, conventional definition. And despite 
your ridiculous suggestion that I'm trying to LIMIT it to this definition is 
another straw man. I'm only saying that it begins there. You could have 
something like, "Yea, but some theists (insert your own qualifications, 
modifications and further distinctions here)." Instead of going beyond 
convention, you turned it on its head and refined the terms so that they 
mean the opposite of what the dictionary says. (Faith is based on reason and 
theists don't believe in God.) That level of obfuscation and confusion 
almost seems malicious. Almost. At best, that makes a mess of things and it 
certainly doesn't help.

dmb had said:
...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. 
...

Scott replied:
...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...

dmb says:
Automatically excluded from the marketplace? It sure would be nice if you 
would talk to me instead of that fool, Mr. Phony McStrawman. I'm too lazy to 
gather up the evidence at the moment, but my criticisms of those who have 
"faith in God" is that they won't play by the same rules as everyone else - 
at least the ones in this particular intellectual marketplace. My complaints 
are about the sort of faith that hides from evidence and such. And again 
I'll remind you that I'm only going by the dictionary and normal conventions 
when I use the term "faith" to refer to beliefs held in the absence of 
intellectual support.

Scott continued:
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 says:
You talk to fictional straw men and defy the dictionary. Why should anyone 
take you seriously? Look, it took me .17 seconds to find these Tillich 
quotes..."God does not exist. He is being-itself beyond essence and 
existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him."  "God is the 
symbol for God"  "The God of theism is dead"  I think its perfectly clear 
and reasonable to say the author of these words is not a theist or even to 
call him an atheist, although "anti-theist" is probably not in most 
dictionaries. Anyway, in a quick web search I even learned about a book 
titled "Paul Tillich's Dialectical Humanism" By Leonard Wheat. (Johns 
Hopkins Press, 1970) I'm sure there are lots of people would object, but 
Wheat says...

"Tillich's chief claim to fame will be that he fooled a lot of people" (p. 
276). "Tillich is a complete atheist who lost his belief while completing 
his higher education. Intellectually he despises Christianity. . . . Still, 
being the son of a clergyman and having a fondness for religious life … 
Tillich [will] have his cake and eat it too. He is going to remain with the 
Church for the purpose of undermining Christianity from within" (p. 187).

Personally, I wouldn't go that far. Again, my only point here is that your 
unwillness to treat anti-theism "seriously" is itself not to be taken 
seriously. Your attempt to paint my agreement with the dictionary as biased 
or bizzare is just plain stupid. Then there is the superlative loving straw 
man who believes there are only two options for everything. You SEEM to be 
much smarter than that. What's the deal, man?

dmb

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/