this is n answer to your question Pix. you ask if i believe Go is personal. short answer: God is transperonal. what does that mean? read the articles.
http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2011/03/p ... d-was.html
for PX: Tillich and the personal God
Moderator:Metacrock
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Re: for PX: Tillich and the personal God
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Re: for PX: Tillich and the personal God
Apologies for not getting to this sooner. Some comments.
We can define a set as everything plus God. God, whatever his nature, is necessarily a part of that set. According to what you say here, God is necessarily limited by that set.
Part 1 has a reply on another blog, which attempts to explain your position in terms of entities and properties, with "being" a property, rather than an entity. Is that accurate?
Atheists do that because Christians present God in that way. Part two bashes Dawkins for using this concept of God, whhilst pretty much ignoring that the vast majority of theists do the same. I think it is perfectly reasonable for Dawkins and other atheists to address this concept of God, given its almost universal acceptance by theists.I also add my own litany of problem, centering on the way atheists frame the question of God as “big man in the sky.”
If you say God is excluded from reality (i.e., the set of that which is real), that would imply God is not real.The theistic view of God is usually understood as the idea of a “person” or an aware mind that is surveying reality and creating out of rational wisdom. It is this concept of a mind surveying a world it creates that is part of the problem, it makes God into “the supreme being” or the greatest part of reality. A part is still subject to or limited by the whole.
We can define a set as everything plus God. God, whatever his nature, is necessarily a part of that set. According to what you say here, God is necessarily limited by that set.
I find this dubious. Early religions envisaged gods as little more than superhumans. The concept of a single all-powerful entity is the evolution of that concept over thousands of years. Indeed, Tillich is trying to move away from the “big man in the sky” that many still have. Just how difficult is it to imagine a “big man in the sky”?Tillich wrote: Mythological fantasy can create stories about Gods but it cannot create the idea of God itself, because the idea transcends all the elements of experience which constitute mythology.
So more like The Force than the traditional view of God (and a quick Google suggests I am not a lone in making that connection).He asserts that God acts in beings to suit their special nature. In humans God acts in a personal way and in plants God acts in an impersonal way. For Tillich God is not a wielder of final cause but is a conduit for cause distributed throughout all of reality. Here he is referring to the panENtheist assumptions of his view. God is in all things and as such is relating to them in the manner of a unifying source rather than a direct manipulator.[vii] God for Tillich is the unconditioned boundless undifferentiated unity.
So do not make doctrine in "the dark places", like for example the description of being itself? Seems to me, he has done exactly that.The first such caveat is that we not make God of the gap arguments. That we not make doctrines or predicate our theology in “the dark places” where scientific knowledge has not penetrated. ... He argues that theology must leave to science the description of things and leave to philosophy the description of being itself and the logos in which being becomes manifest.
Agreed!Tillich doesn’t say so but it is my observation that theological theism is based upon Aristotle’s prime mover more so than upon the God of the Bible.
What exactly is this "depth of being" and why should we suppose it exists?That would place God under the regime of being rather than understanding God as the foundation of being. There are a couple of good reasons not to do that. The depth of being is certainly one such reason. We know that being has depth then the basis of being can’t be just another thing like an impersonal force. ... The ground of being can’t be merely probable, either there’s a found of being or there is not. If not then there can’t be any depth of being either. If there is depth there is a ground, and if there is a ground it can’t be just another thing.
Part 1 has a reply on another blog, which attempts to explain your position in terms of entities and properties, with "being" a property, rather than an entity. Is that accurate?
Re: for PX: Tillich and the personal God
hey no problem man.The Pixie wrote:Apologies for not getting to this sooner. Some comments.
I also add my own litany of problem, centering on the way atheists frame the question of God as “big man in the sky.”
that's a good point but there are problems.Atheists do that because Christians present God in that way. Part two bashes Dawkins for using this concept of God, whhilst pretty much ignoring that the vast majority of theists do the same. I think it is perfectly reasonable for Dawkins and other atheists to address this concept of God, given its almost universal acceptance by theists.
(1) I think Dawkins is a lot mores trident abouit it with no willingness to see the flexibility that is greater than you think.
(2) There is a lot more of an exhausted view than you think such as with liberal theology process theology which is very popular and so on.
(3) atheists ridicule attempts to have an exhaled view and act like it can't be Christian as though they get to say what is Christian.
Universal mind is up a level from that. The notion of conscious awareness is anthropomorphic per se even though we do have it. There are other things that have conscious awareness that are nit humans. We tend to paint God as a jumped up man even in making him a disembodied mind. The idea of universal mind is higher because it's more than just a jumped up man but a mind that can know all minds and all perspectives. it's not limited to a single entity.The theistic view of God is usually understood as the idea of a “person” or an aware mind that is surveying reality and creating out of rational wisdom. It is this concept of a mind surveying a world it creates that is part of the problem, it makes God into “the supreme being” or the greatest part of reality. A part is still subject to or limited by the whole.
this is why Tillich uses words like "the personal itself" and "transpersonal."
right I did not say that. The frame comes with the picture.If you say God is excluded from reality (i.e., the set of that which is real), that would imply God is not real.
to the set of reality yet, but that does not make God subject to being in the sense that we are. If you want to play games with words we can say God is subject to being God so he can;'t be God.We can define a set as everything plus God. God, whatever his nature, is necessarily a part of that set. According to what you say here, God is necessarily limited by that set.
Tillich wrote: Mythological fantasy can create stories about Gods but it cannot create the idea of God itself, because the idea transcends all the elements of experience which constitute mythology.
you are confusing God with gods. It is true the idea of God devolved out of gods they developed out of spirits and those developed out of enchanted nature.There might have been a "Adam" or "Noah,"(although not the guy made on the sixth day, but early recipients of full blown revelation. But the fact that ideas of God have evolved doesn't make them wrong anymore than the idea that math has developed makes math wrong.There was a time when people could only count on their fingers and toes.I find this dubious. Early religions envisaged gods as little more than superhumans. The concept of a single all-powerful entity is the evolution of that concept over thousands of years. Indeed, Tillich is trying to move away from the “big man in the sky” that many still have. Just how difficult is it to imagine a “big man in the sky”?
He asserts that God acts in beings to suit their special nature. In humans God acts in a personal way and in plants God acts in an impersonal way. For Tillich God is not a wielder of final cause but is a conduit for cause distributed throughout all of reality. Here he is referring to the panENtheist assumptions of his view. God is in all things and as such is relating to them in the manner of a unifying source rather than a direct manipulator.[vii] God for Tillich is the unconditioned boundless undifferentiated unity.
I don't see that as being like a force. But i think Tillich;'s view is closer to impersonal than mine.So more like The Force than the traditional view of God (and a quick Google suggests I am not a lone in making that connection).
The first such caveat is that we not make God of the gap arguments. That we not make doctrines or predicate our theology in “the dark places” where scientific knowledge has not penetrated. ... He argues that theology must leave to science the description of things and leave to philosophy the description of being itself and the logos in which being becomes manifest.
What makes you think that's a dark place? It is not for two reasons: The concept of dark place is not just no light but one that science will eventually illumine,we are talking about god of the gaps. Science has nothing today about being and it never will. that is outside the domain. Secondly, we knkow about being itself because are in being, it only requires phenomenology.So do not make doctrine in "the dark places", like for example the description of being itself? Seems to me, he has done exactly that.
Tillich doesn’t say so but it is my observation that theological theism is based upon Aristotle’s prime mover more so than upon the God of the Bible.
Yeah!Agreed!
That would place God under the regime of being rather than understanding God as the foundation of being. There are a couple of good reasons not to do that. The depth of being is certainly one such reason. We know that being has depth then the basis of being can’t be just another thing like an impersonal force. ... The ground of being can’t be merely probable, either there’s a gound of being or there is not. If not then there can’t be any depth of being either. If there is depth there is a ground, and if there is a ground it can’t be just another thing.
surface of being is existence per se, Brute facts would be surface level. a mere discretion of existing things that makes no attempt to understand anything beyond that in any way. Depth is the alternative,m there are reasons for things there's meaning it's not just all brute fact.What exactly is this "depth of being" and why should we suppose it exists?
Part 1 has a reply on another blog, which attempts to explain your position in terms of entities and properties, with "being" a property, rather than an entity. Is that accurate?[/quote]
I will have to check that,out. thanks.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Re: for PX: Tillich and the personal God
Yeah, I agree with you here ... My experience is - well, not so much officially coming down from the pulpit - but a lot of Xians on both sides of the pews quietly entertain some process-type idea these days -& often they've even developed their line of thinking independently, more or less on their own.....just makes sense to a lot of peeps!(2) There is a lot more of an exhaust[ive] view than you think such as with liberal theology process theology which is very popular and so on.
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton
Dr Ward Blanton