[MD] New Model Army, Mystic(DQ) Experience, and Religion (SQ) as Power

[Case]

> dmb says:
> Yes, of course I realize that not all christians beong the religious
> right.
> I'm simply pointing out that the religous right controls the party that
> holds power and that the vast majority of Americans are Christian. And it
> seems to me that the christians who are appalled by the right wing are not
> appalled with the right wing because they are christian or theist, but
> rather because they are right wing. If I had said that all christians were
> right wingers or all christians were republicans, you would have made a
> good
> point, but I didn't so you don't.

[Case]
Since you have never specifically acknowledged a good Christian it is
difficult to tell that you admit to their existance. If you actually take
what you say above seriously why not rant against right wing politic and
skip bashing Christians? After all they are not a party and they do not
control any portion of the government.


> dmb says:
> Yes, building houses for people who need them is a good thing. Charity is
> a
> good thing. But you are totally missing the point. Atheists,
> Scientologists
> and a troupe of clowns can build houses too. I'm talking about the
> difference between theism and mysticism. The 12-step programs are good for
> people who need to overcome addiction, but what does that have to do with
> mysticism? I mean, getting sober and getting enlightened are both good
> things but they're hardly the same thing.

[Case]
You asked for theists who tend to regard "God" as a mystical metaphor
rather than big daddy in the sky. From a philosophical perspective I
continue to maintain that the difference between mystics and theists
doesn't add up to a bucket of warm spit.


> dmb says;
> Okay, I'll bite. I'm a fan of Elaine Pagels and Thomas Jefferson. Let's
> start with them. Are you saying they are simply nice, moderate christians,
> which is beside the point, or are you trying to tell me that they are
> mystics? Oh, this outta be fun. Good luck.

[Case]
I am saying these are people who emphasis the metaphorical Quality of
"God" as opposed to the bearded wrist slapper qualities. Borg in
particular talks about Jesus as a "spirit person" (his term) and places
his teaching is the wider context of world religious teachers. Steven
Mitchell's "Gospel According to Jesus" is particularly valuable in this
respect. Sprong has been eloquent in his attacks on the religious right
and literalism. Pagels is more of a historian than a theologian but she
has done a lot to show the historical development of Christianity and the
variety of ways that the Christian revelation has been understood.
Jefferson and deists understand God as a creative source rather as a first
cause who basically then backed off. As for pantheists and pagans... Well
you ignore them. Why aren't they theistic enough to incur your wrath?