[MD] False Messiah

[Scott Roberts]

DMB,

I see. If one wants to find out what theism means, one should on no account 
ask a theologian. They might actually say something that would lead us to 
question our definitions, and we can't have that.

- Scott

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "david buchanan" <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2006 4:55 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] False Messiah


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/




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


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/