[MD] False Messiah

[david buchanan]

Scott, DM and all MOQers:

I should have been including you in the address all along, DM, since you and 
Scott seem to be working the same ground. Anyway...

Scott said:
...That sure looks to me like you are not considering such a possibility as 
a non-literalist-type theism,
that you are only considering two positions.

dmb says:
It looks that way because you refuse to allow my use of standard 
definitions. According to the meaning of the terms "theism" and 
"literalism", there is no such thing as a non-literalistic theist. They are 
contrary terms. I'm not using the logic of these concepts or definitions to 
rule out anything. I'm just trying to be clear and consistent about my 
meaning.

Scott said:
Actually, I didn't say that faith is based on reason (I said that faith and 
reason require each other). Here's what Tillich says, by the way: "Reason is 
the pre-condition of faith; faith is the act by which reason reaches 
ecstatically beyond itself." [Dynamics of Faith, p. 76]

dmb says:
Its obvious that Tillich is not using the term "faith" as I'm using it. He's 
not talking about "beliefs in the absence of evidence". He's talking about a 
transcendent experience. I think that we can discuss this use of the word 
without too much confusion if we are careful to explain that this single 
term is being used to refer to radically different ideas. I think you have 
been very sloppy about that and have repeatedly condemned me for trying to 
be neat about it.

Scott said to dmb:
You said, "And as I understand the terms "Faith" and "God", its hard to 
reconcile "faith in God" with intellectual freedom and intellectual values". 
And a long time back you said that theists were intellectually dishonest. 
You didn't qualify this with "some" or "many"...

dmb says:
Again, the problem is that you refuse my use of the terms. If "faith" means 
a belief that is held in the absence of evidence, then my claim that it is 
hard to reconcile with intellectual values is a tautology. If "faith" means 
what it means in the dictionary, then it is intellectually dishonest by 
definition. But as I recall, my complaints about intellectual dishonesty 
among theists were far more specific, we aimed at particular claims made 
here, etc.

Scott said:
You should be noticing that Tillich understands the terms differently than 
you do... ...They remain, in their own minds, theists. You and they are 
playing by different rules, but these rules "everyone else" are supposedly 
playing by are in fact only in use by fundamentalists and anti-theists. So 
what I am saying is that if you want to join in intellectual discussion and 
argumentation with non-literalist theists, the burden is on you to learn the 
new rules according to which contemporary, non-literalist theists play. Of 
course, you also have the option of not joining in, but you did.

dmb says:
I have to learn the new rules!?! Oh, yes. The burden is upon me to keep up 
with what's happening at divinity school so I can use theological jargon 
instead of standard American english to discuss the MOQ. You've got to be 
kidding! I guess we're just gonna have to disagee about this too, Scott. As 
I keep saying, please bring it, but I think that anyone who wants to import 
thinkers from that world has the responsibility to be clear about 
translating theological language into something accessible and clear to 
non-professionals. I think you've been very sloppy about that and it has 
caused far more confusion and hostility than is necessary. And naturally, 
this burden does not just apply to theists. These rules go for everybody no 
matter what the import is or says. Don't you think? As I said, otherwise 
we're not even talking about the same thing. I'd say the vast majority of 
our disagreement is based on the fact that I'm using standard definitions 
while you are a divinity school drop out who has forgotten how to talk like 
a normal person. Or something like that.

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