multidenominational witchcraft thread: because demonocracy has succeeded

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > multidenominational witchcraft thread: because demonocracy has succeeded

«‹›29 »

nice obelisk idiot: May 18, 2023; funerary linens looking like dishrags

Azathoth posted:

Oh you are absolutely fine. The reason that I wanted to bring that up is that particular passage has been used in a lot of lovely ways (like committing suicide is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, as the Holy Spirit gives life, and so that is why someone who commits suicide is damned to conscious eternal torture spoilered for discussing self harm).

Personally, I interpret it as being unable to forgive oneself and others and thus "blaspheming", which means then that God cannot forgive until the person comes around and is able to show the love and grace of God through their own actions, but I acknowledge that this isn't the only interpretation and many others could be just as valid.

Yes, good point and it's unfortunately ironic that I chose that example in that light.

I think that it's also tied to pride: like "this love comes from me and only me, I am the radiant source of light". Rather than something that's everywhere and in everything, and merely reflected in us and us in it. "Turning away and touching are both wrong, for it is like a massive fire"

# ? Apr 12, 2024 22:08

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 30, 2024 01:26

Paramemetic: Sep 29, 2003; Area 51. You heard of it, right?; Fallen Rib

LITERALLY A BIRD posted:

I fully appreciate the affectionate amusement provided by me being Tillich's Biggest Fan while seated at the polytheism table, but I think the above excerpt does an excellent job of articulating some of his ways of thinking that clearly participated in people like me being able to derive wisdom and guidance from his work.

Something equally relevant to observe is that after developing this life's work of ontology as experienced via a Christian path, Tillich came to identify the God-beyond-God, Being-Itself, the Ultimate Divine, as the entity that is called Spirit, rather than the Father. I think this is wildly important for understanding the sense of pluralism that sometimes arises in his work and for which he was (and still is) subject to enormous criticism from traditional Christian theists. Tillich was adamant, for example, that Being-Itself is being, but it is not a being. It is not a person. The Son and the Father are perceived and communicated with as one would another person; they are Deities. The Spirit, ever present, at once immanent and transcendent to us all, human and Deity alike, is God.

God the Father is humanity, Jesus is Project YorHa (or specifically No. 9 if you're into that Deep Lore), and the Holy Spirit is the pod network

# ? Apr 12, 2024 22:32

LITERALLY A BIRD: Sep 27, 2008; I knew you were trouble
when you flew in

Paramemetic posted:

God the Father is humanity, Jesus is Project YorHa (or specifically No. 9 if you're into that Deep Lore), and the Holy Spirit is the pod network

I can neither confirm nor deny this particular speculative metaphor

Ohtori Akio posted:

judaism is pretty specific about the monotheism so in that context the holy spirit is a created non god entity which acts as intermediary but i couldn't go into specifics beyond that.

Azathoth posted:

There is a theory of the Holy Spirit which holds that she is what arises out of the interaction between God the Father and God the Son, which would be reasonably consistent with what you wrote there. In other words, the Holy Spirit is the way we experience Jesus and thus the Father, who is entirely transcendent and cannot be experienced in a rational way. I'm not sure I buy it, but your post made me think of it.

I think you are both referring to a very similar interpretation of the Spirit here, which is one that I perceive to be an accurate perception but not a complete one. To Ohtori's point on Judaism, I think it's relevant that the monotheism there is designed around Yahweh actively proscribing the worship of any and all other Gods: for the Spirit to be recognized as a God itself would violate the covenant between the God of the Israelites and his people, but since the Spirit is Divinity the reality of it must be acknowledged in some manner, and thereby it becomes the inanimate power of "God," as opposed to the living energy and essence that powers anything we call "God."

You and I are doing some interesting folding back and forth of each other's thoughts/ideas, Az, because while I also don't buy that the Spirit is what arises through interactions of/with the Father and Son, exactly, again I think that is part of it and get why my post reminded you of that. If you remember the way I've said in A/T that the Spirit, how it is perceived and described as something ever-present, subtle, but unmistakably holy, reminds me very much of how my religion experiences the Divine multi-concept ma'at, this still holds true. And while perceiving ma'at as the result of interaction with the Divine is correct, it denies the remainder of the entire body of ma'at, shrinks our perspective from the Divine that suffuses everything and exists still further beyond everything to simply the part of it we see through the pinhole of our relationship with Deity. From my perspective, claiming the Spirit is a mere procession of the Deities who embody it, and not acknowledging that it is "the God beyond God" itself, is the first thing that comes to mind with the Christ's admonition against blasphemy.

Ohtori Akio posted:

i think its very charming that Christ spoke in riddles and our engagement with the scriptures about him is now discerning what in the gently caress he meant by some of that

it's hard to communicate sacred truths in plain language, I get it. but man, yeah, two thousand years later, feel like a little less rhetoric might have really behooved us in places

# ? Apr 13, 2024 00:30

Ohtori Akio: Jul 15, 2022

i remarked to a good friend the other day that we might spend less time chewing on the ideas if Christ had done more chewing for us

# ? Apr 13, 2024 00:34

Sherbert Hoover: Dec 12, 2019; Working hard, thank you!

i feel like for this conversation to be fruitful there should be some statement as to whether someone is talking about their interpretation of what second temple jews or early christians thought the holy spirit was or their own interpretation of what the holy spirit is, in actuality (or some third option)

# ? Apr 13, 2024 00:36

Ohtori Akio: Jul 15, 2022

yeah my own idea of what the holy spirit is, is distinct from what lab's saying and from how i think second temple israelites thought of it and hell its different from the average pentecostal. the holy spirit is intensely subjective so thats part of the difficulty of discussing it unfortunately.

# ? Apr 13, 2024 00:39

LITERALLY A BIRD: Sep 27, 2008; I knew you were trouble
when you flew in

Okay, see this?

That one on the right is where I am. I am saying that "the Spirit" is the whole oval, but "the Father" and "the Son" are mere circle-sized, along with every other "God"/Deity. However my opponents declare that, should they even deign acknowledgement of my absurd panentheistic reality model (classic theism is on the left), "the Father" is the big one, probably "the Son" too, they're not really all that sure about "the Spirit" at all actually; that one could be either.

# ? Apr 13, 2024 00:42

LITERALLY A BIRD: Sep 27, 2008; I knew you were trouble
when you flew in

also, again, the Spirit gives us magic. That's the same Spirit for everyone. This is very important here, in the witchcraft thread.

LITERALLY A BIRD has issued a correction as of 02:48 on Apr 13, 2024

# ? Apr 13, 2024 00:44

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

A Trinitarian way to look at it is: The Father is Being itself, the Son is the Ground of Being, and the Spirit is Being in each of us who are the siblings of the Son and children of the Father.

# ? Apr 13, 2024 00:47

BONGHITZ: Jan 1, 1970

i thought the holy spirit was the sun

# ? Apr 13, 2024 00:48

LITERALLY A BIRD: Sep 27, 2008; I knew you were trouble
when you flew in

!!! Hey BRD :buddy:

# ? Apr 13, 2024 00:48

LITERALLY A BIRD: Sep 27, 2008; I knew you were trouble
when you flew in

BONGHITZ posted:

i thought the holy spirit was the sun

The Sun is a powerful and terrifying magician :tinfoil:

e: my phone kept fighting me to auto-capitalize "Sun" which I really don't think I taught it on purpose :lol:

LITERALLY A BIRD has issued a correction as of 00:55 on Apr 13, 2024

# ? Apr 13, 2024 00:50

Ohtori Akio: Jul 15, 2022

da freakin trinity ftw.

# ? Apr 13, 2024 01:01

Jazerus: May 24, 2011

Ohtori Akio posted:

i remarked to a good friend the other day that we might spend less time chewing on the ideas if Christ had done more chewing for us

i don't think that jesus meant to die when and where he did at all. the word is incomplete for better or for worse

# ? Apr 13, 2024 01:19

Ohtori Akio: Jul 15, 2022

Jazerus posted:

i don't think that jesus meant to die when and where he did at all. the word is incomplete for better or for worse

now thats a heresy ive never seen before lol

# ? Apr 13, 2024 01:29

nice obelisk idiot: May 18, 2023; funerary linens looking like dishrags

Jazerus posted:

i don't think that jesus meant to die when and where he did at all. the word is incomplete for better or for worse

IMO with a lot of great texts, religious or otherwise, incompleteness is in our imperfect way of seeing things

there were and still are plenty of people who understand it extremely well. understand it like looking at their hand, and to them it is complete. I think that's partially why martyrdom was so important to the early church. If there's moral fearlessness in outward conduct, and you face your internal fear, frailty, vanity, etc in a painful death, there's not a patch of ground to stand on. Any hard-earned understanding is right there for you

# ? Apr 13, 2024 01:35

Sherbert Hoover: Dec 12, 2019; Working hard, thank you!

Ohtori Akio posted:

now thats a heresy ive never seen before lol

lol i thought the same thing and then wondered why as someone raised christian but became an atheist i'm still so protective of little o orthodoxy

# ? Apr 13, 2024 01:41

Jazerus: May 24, 2011

Ohtori Akio posted:

now thats a heresy ive never seen before lol

it's fairly obvious in the synoptic gospels imo. for whatever reason the idea that jesus meant to die exactly when he did is pervasive but the synoptics make it pretty clear that he was taken off-guard by the arrest and execution. if that's the case then there's no way he didn't plan to keep going right? the trip to jerusalem was a field trip and after he would have gone back to galilee to keep up the usual shenanigans. so not all of his thoughts made it out into the world. i don't think it's something christians particularly like to think about for whatever reason but any time someone dies by sudden violence there's poo poo left unsaid and undone

# ? Apr 13, 2024 01:43

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

the death is the event though.

# ? Apr 13, 2024 01:45

Jazerus: May 24, 2011

sure but i'm not a christian and not viewing it through that lens. the death is the central event of the theology - but how could it be anything but a premature end to what the man, jesus, planned to do and say?

# ? Apr 13, 2024 01:50

Sherbert Hoover: Dec 12, 2019; Working hard, thank you!

it seems pretty clear that if you believe he was divine he meant to do it and if you don't he probably didn't

# ? Apr 13, 2024 01:52

Ohtori Akio: Jul 15, 2022

Sherbert Hoover posted:

it seems pretty clear that if you believe he was divine he meant to do it and if you don't he probably didn't

this op

# ? Apr 13, 2024 01:56

Sherbert Hoover: Dec 12, 2019; Working hard, thank you!

also the pauline epistles rest on some idea of a voluntary sacrifice as a basis for humanity's salvation, so the doctrine of atonement was already formed prior to the writing of the synoptic gospels

# ? Apr 13, 2024 01:59

nice obelisk idiot: May 18, 2023; funerary linens looking like dishrags

you can say plan to have lunch next week, but you know that you're going to be murdered by the mafia at any point as well, because you've decided to tell the truth about something. so it's partially a product of language, as that's very different in significance than say he was planning to be the jewish political messiah and he was shocked that it didn't pan out

# ? Apr 13, 2024 02:03

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Jazerus posted:

- but how could it be anything but a premature end to what the man, jesus, planned to do and say?

it�s the big L. an embarrassing total and complete destruction.

But it�s not just him. I�m partial to the idea that the gospels are written down by different communities as the war progresses. The Romans are crucifying lots of people as they put down the revolt. The world is ending for these communities there are lots of crosses. They have to pick which story they are going to tell and how that story is structured.

The story inverts being crushed by power.

# ? Apr 13, 2024 02:11

Ohtori Akio: Jul 15, 2022

one of the most problematic things about the criterion of embarrassment for determining what of the gospels is historical is that the embarrassment of the story is clearly a meaningful part of the text. it's all about inversions of expectation

# ? Apr 13, 2024 02:17

Squizzle: Apr 24, 2008

Bar Ran Dun posted:

it’s the big L. an embarrassing total and complete destruction.

But it’s not just him. I’m partial to the idea that the gospels are written down by different communities as the war progresses. The Romans are crucifying lots of people as they put down the revolt. The world is ending for these communities there are lots of crosses. They have to pick which story they are going to tell and how that story is structured.

The story inverts being crushed by power.

luke-acts is relentless in this, esp in portrayals of royalty and divinity of christ. there are a ton of v nuänced juxtapositions of power/glory w various forms of opposite

# ? Apr 13, 2024 03:24

Azathoth: Apr 3, 2001

Sherbert Hoover posted:

i feel like for this conversation to be fruitful there should be some statement as to whether someone is talking about their interpretation of what second temple jews or early christians thought the holy spirit was or their own interpretation of what the holy spirit is, in actuality (or some third option)

The idea that the Holy Spirit arises out of the interaction between God the Father and God the Son is modern-ish theology. I don't know the specific history, but I think it is post-Enlightenment. Also, just to be clear, it's not what I hold myself, I'm a very boring little-o orthodox trinitarian.

Ohtori Akio posted:

now thats a heresy ive never seen before lol

It's a reasonably common view among historical Jesus scholars and pretty consistent with the synoptic Gospel's witness. Jesus straight up says that he doesn't know when he's returning, so we have a canonical statement that he doesn't have foreknowledge of at least one thing. It stands to reason that if he doesn't know that, he might not know other stuff.

Personally, I'm ambivalent on it, I don't think it really matters if Jesus knew from the start he was going to die at that exact time and place and went about his business anyways or if he got got unexpectedly. He was perfectly following the will of God the Father in either case.

If I had to pick, I'd say he didn't know because part of the experience of being human is having limited knowledge and perspective. If he was at all times tapped into divine knowledge, that's closer to the docetic heresy than Arianism or adoptionism or any of the other early heresies that try to make Jesus a lesser being.

# ? Apr 13, 2024 04:20

Trash Ops: Jun 19, 2012; im having fun, isnt everyone else?

LITERALLY A BIRD posted:

I've found you an excellent method for casting out demons, in the name of fan favorite deity Jesus the Christ to help keep mainstream practitioners comfortable. So now all you need to do is find someone who is currently possessed by a succubus spirit, exorcise them, and then I guess recapture and/or strike a consensual deal with the newly manifest succubus entity, for fellatio. Then you should be all set.

I hope your Coptic is good. Best of luck

i already killed the coptic in my head gently caress off

# ? Apr 13, 2024 09:40

Squizzle: Apr 24, 2008

Trash Ops posted:

i already killed the coptic in my head gently caress off

copt and seetht

# ? Apr 13, 2024 16:18

LITERALLY A BIRD: Sep 27, 2008; I knew you were trouble
when you flew in

Trash Ops posted:

i already killed the coptic in my head gently caress off

What're you replacing him with, friend?

Here's a giant Tillich essay for people who may be interested in it.
RELIGIOUS RELATIVISM: PAUL TILLICH'S "LAST WORD"
O. Douglas Schwarz, 1986

quote:

I. Introduction

In 1965, ten days before his death, Paul Tillich delivered his final public address, "The Significance of the History of Religions for the Systematic Theologian."1 The position outlined in this essay is relativistic. No religious tradition is assumed or proved to be superior to any other; rather, Tillich concludes that all traditions must be assumed to be of equal, though limited, validity. Nonetheless, he affirms the possibility and even the necessity of being religious according to the forms of some particular tradition, and shows how particularistic faith be reconciled intellectually with acknowledgement of the validity of other traditions.

This last Tillich essay grew partly out of his two years of joint teaching with Mircea Eliade, the great historian of religion -- and, according to Eliade, it "oriented toward, and was in dialogue with, the whole history of religions."2 This may well have been Tillich's intent. I hope to demonstrate, however, that there is little in the essay which is truly "new" for Tillich. While it is true that for most of his life Tillich argued for the superiority of Christianity to all other religious traditions, the seeds of his relativism were planted very early in his career. The conclusions reached in this final essay follow easily -- if not inevitably -- from his most basic assumptions as to the natures of humanity, God, and religion. That this is true renders those conclusions all the more important and compelling.

In this paper I shall first outline what I take to be Tillich's basic theological position -- as expressed in the Systematic Theology and other works written during the 1930s, '40s, and '50s -- stressing his conception of the relationship between Christianity and the other world religions. I shall then discuss in more detail the change in his thinking that resulted from his 1960 journey to Japan, drawing primarily upon Christianity and the Encounter of the World Religions.

Finally, and most extensively, I will consider the position outlined in his final essay.

quote:

II. "Basic" Tillich

One of the most fundamental bases of Tillich's thought is the concept of human finitude. Tillich holds that all persons, as members of the realm of "being," are necessarily threatened by the power of "nonbeing." We experience finitude in terms of our own limitations, especially in the knowledge of our inevitable deaths. Awareness of our mortality leads us to wonder as to our destiny and origins -- to ask why and how it is that we exist. Knowing the transitory nature of all being, we can even ask why anything should exist at all. These are not the idle speculations of scholastics, but expressions of the existential human dilemma which all of us -- consciously or unconsciously -- continually face. Such questions, according to Tillich, have no answer in the realm of being. Fortunately, human beings are able to conceive of something beyond the realm of being, something which would not be a being, but Being-itself, in no way threatened by the power of nonbeing. This concept of Being-itself represents the only possible solution to our essential problem of finitude, and therefore it is the proper object of our ultimate concera. This is Tillich's definition of God.4

Now, however, a new problem arises. Assuming that there is some Reality corresponding to the concept of Being-itself, how can we even begin to deal with It? We cannot transcend our own finitude to grasp (physically or intellectually) something outside the realm of being -- nor could Being-itself enter into the realm of being without violating Its own nature. In religious language, how can humanity know of, speak of, think of, or in any way relate to an utterly transcendent God? The answer, according to Tillich, is through symbols.

Tillich's understanding of the nature of symbols is laid out carefully in his short work, Dynamics of Faith. Symbols, he asserts, "point beyond themselves to something else." To one who understands their meaning, symbols indicate something other than what is immediately present to the senses. Thus the flag of the United States represents the country itself -- though someone not familiar with its meaning would see only stars and stripes.

Symbols have several additional characteristics, the most important being that a symbol "participates in that to which it points."6 What this seems to mean in practical terms is that symbols become identified with the things they represent.7 Thus we pledge allegiance to the flag, as well as to the republic for which it stands. The flag cannot be permitted to touch the ground, or the country itself would somehow be soiled. Similarly, when certain persons in our recent history burned flags to express disapproval of the country, other persons were moved to assault the burners. All of this shows that the flag is identified with the country in a way and with a fervor that almost seems to lead people to confuse the two.

Symbols provide a means whereby human beings can deal, however remotely, with Being-itself. While the finite realities with which our minds must work cannot express infinite Reality "directly and properly," some of them can point beyond themselves, beyond their own finitude, indicating Being-itself in an indirect fashion. In Tillich's view, all religion -- scripture, ritual, prayer, theology, etc. -- is to be understood as symbolic. All talk of God -- His name, "His" gender, His various attributes -- is likewise symbolic. These religious symbols are at once necessary and inadequate: necessary, in that they are the only media through which humanity can relate to God; inadequate, because no finite reality can adequately express infinite Reality.

This ambivalence in the nature of religious symbols is the source of the greatest danger connected with religion, that of idolatry. It is characteristic of symbols that they become identified with that which they symbolize. And if this is true of ordinary symbols (e.g., the flag) which represent relatively concrete realities (the nation), how much more it is true of religious symbols, which represent something that cannot be grasped in any other way. Thus there is a tendency on the part of all religious persons mistakenly to suppose that the symbols of which their tradition is composed are themselves the final reality, rather than merely indicators of that reality.9

It is of the utmost importance to Tillich that religion resist its natural tendency toward idolatry. This it can do through what Tillich called in 1931 "the protestant principle."10 This consists simply of the recognition that no religion offers a true and accurate "picture" of the Divine, and that all religions are therefore charged to quest beyond themselves, recognizing themselves as only relatively true. Tillich is careful to point out that he means the word "protestant" here to be understood as having a small 'p.' The protestant principle is not solely the product of -- nor solely applicable to -- Protestantism, Christianity in general, or even exclusively to religious institutions.

With the development of the protestant principle, Tillich has already moved a considerable distance away from the traditional, exclusivistic Christian attitude toward non-Christian religions (i.e. that Christian teachings are true, while the teachings of other religions are false) in the direction of a religious relativism. The protestant principle declares that Christian truth can only be relative truth and implies that other religious traditions may also be relatively true. The true truth, according to this theory, is beyond expression by any finite phenomenon, including Christianity.

Nonetheless, through the 1950s Christianity retained a position of clear superiority to other religious traditions in Tillich's thought. While he could not maintain that any religious tradition was the perfect expression of Divine reality, he did feel it was legitimate to ask which tradition was the best such expression. That is, which of the many necessarily inadequate symbols for God is the most nearly adequate.11

His criterion for making this judgment was, in effect, the protestant principle. The best symbol for God, he maintained, is that which most effectively points beyond itself to God, negating (insofar as is possible) its own importance.12 Stated more negatively, the best symbol for God is that which is least susceptible to idolatry. For most of his life, Tillich believed that the one religious symbol which best fit these criteria was that is the crucified Christ.13 Jesus is, for Christian tradition, the paradigm example of a finite being in which the Infinite is somehow manifest. In Tillich's view, Jesus' death effectively demonstrates his finitude, forcing his followers to look beyond him to the greater Reality which he represents.

In the Systematic Theology Tillich states that there is nothing in the realm of being which cannot be a medium for revelation (i.e. a symbol for God), since all things participate in Being-itself. The history of revelation is divided, however, into a period of preparation, and one of reception. The point of division is the life of Christ, which Tillich terms the "final" revelation. Prior to Christ there was "universal" revelation, revelation to be found in all cultures and situations, even in those not explicitly religious. A vast groundwork of religious symbolism was thus laid, without which final revelation would not have been possible. This process did not and could not cease with the coming of Jesus -- but the Christian revelation is "final" in the sense that all other revelation (before or since) is subordinate to it. The life of Jesus is the definitive revelation: all other revelation must be interpreted in its light. Such, at least, was Tillich's belief prior to 1960.

quote:

III. "Encountering" the World Religions

In the year 1960, Tillich made a ten-day lecture tour of Japan, taking the opportunity to become acquainted with Shinto, at least two forms of Buddhism, and various syncretistic religions. His "informal report" on the tour (which saw three drafts before he presented it to colleagues at Harvard) speaks of his delight in talking with leaders of the various sects. He debated with them on philosophical rather than theological (i.e., Christian) grounds, arguing, for example, that Shinto ignores the reality of death, that the cult of Amida is idolatrous, and that Buddhism in general neglects the communal aspect of human nature.

Despite his philosophical disagreements with these faiths, however, Tillich came away from Japan considerably humbled. In the concluding paragraph of his report he states, "... I know that something has happened: No Western provincialism of which I am aware will be tolerated by me now in my thought and work...."15 Evidently, the insights gained in Japan had caused him to reevaluate some of his own work, exposing flaws which he now intended to repair. Just how those repairs would proceed soon became apparent.

The "first fruit" of Tillich's journey was Christianity and the Encounter of the World Religions, published in 1961, his first and only book on the specific subject of Christianity's relation to other religions (and to "pseudo-religious" institutions such as Communism). The position outlined in this work is somewhat ambiguous. He states that Christianity must reject other religions "insofar as they contradict the Christian principle." This action, however, should not be unilateral, but should involve "a dialectic union of rejection and acceptance."16

What this seems to mean is that the Christian must recognize that other religions are -- like Christianity itself -- systems of symbols intended to represent Divine reality. The Christian is called upon to reject the symbols insofar as they are finite entities standing in opposition to the finite elements of Christianity. Once again, Tillich insists that the crucified Christ is the final, normative religious symbol. But the Christian must accept other religions insofar as they point beyond themselves to Being-itself.

In practice, what this means is that the proper task of Christianity in relation to other religions is not evangelism. Rather, it is the protest against idolatry. What Christians must do is seek to persuade other religions of the relativity of their own symbols, when compared to the Absolute which these symbols represent. This, says Tillich, is a reasonable goal because "in the depths of every living religion there is a point at which the religion itself loses its importance...."17 In other words, every religious tradition has a protestant principle, a recognition of the fact that the religion itself is but an inadequate expression of the inexpressible Divine reality. Christianity, the tradition in which Tillich believes this principle is most powerfully expressed (in the image of the crucified Christ), has the task of assisting the other religions in developing this aspect of their own traditions to the fullest possible extent.

In one sense, this is not so far from Tillich's pre-1960 position. One could argue that he is still reinterpreting other religions in light of Christianity's "final" revelation. The tone of the two positions, however, is quite different.
Since the Systematic Theology does not deal in any depth with the problem of religious pluralism, it is hard to say just how Tillich then intended non-Christian revelation to be interpreted in light of the life of Jesus. One does receive the impression, however, that he understood the "final" revelation to be qualitatively different from all others. In Christianity and the Encounter of the World Religions, this difference appears to have been modified to a merely quantitative distinction.

quote:

IV. The "Last Word"

Having reviewed the basic tenets of Tillich's theology and examined the development of his ideas on the relationship of Christianity to other religions, I now turn to his "last word." The theology outlined in Tillich's final essay starts with six presuppositions:

quote:
(1) "... revelatory experiences are universally human."
(2) "... revelation is received by man in terms of his finite human situation... It is received always in a distorted form."
(3) "... there is a revelatory process in which the limits of adaptation and the failures of distortion are subjected to criticism."
(4)"... there may be -- and I stress this, there may be -- a central event in the history of religions which unites the positive results of those critical developments in and under which revelatory experiences are going on -- an event which, therefore, makes possible a concrete theology that has universalistic significance."
(5) "The sacred does not lie beside the secular, but it is its depths."
(6) "...religion... has lasting necessity for any, even the most secularized culture."18

According to Tillich, these presuppositions are necessary as the basis for two fundamental decisions which the theologian who takes the history of religions seriously must make. First, one must separate oneself from "a theology which rejects all religions other than that of which [one] is a theologian." Second, one must reject "the paradox of a religion of non-religion, or a theology without theos, also called a theology of the secular."19 Of these two "basic decisions," it is the first which is of interest here, for this is the core of Tillich's relativism.

How has Tillich arrived at the decision to "separate himself" from all exclusivistic theologies? In theory, this decision is derived from the six presuppositions of the new theology, or rather from some of them. Statements (5) and (6) are actually used only as a basis for the second "basic decision" (the rejection of secularism) and so they need not be considered further.20

Of the remaining four presuppositions, numbers (1), (2), and (3) are relatively straightforward and familiar. It is no surprise to find Tillich suggesting that revelation is a universal human experience; he said as much in the Systematic Theology. The necessary distortion of revelation in the process of its reception by finite humanity, and the notion of a critical process whereby one attempts to uncover and transcend such distortions, is equally familiar; this is simply the protestant principle.

Statement (4), however, is problematical. It does not state a fact, but leaves open a possibility- and precisely what possibility it leaves open is very unclear. Nowhere else in the essay is this "central event" in the history of religions referred to, though it would seem to be the key to the new theology.

One might suppose that Tillich is referring to the "event" of Jesus Christ, which he so long identified as the "final" revelation which unified all others. There is indeed a reference to the crucified Christ symbol further on in the essay, but its significance is limited to the Christian view.21 The only other reference to a specifically Christian symbol concerns Paul's doctrine of the Spirit. But this statement, which will be examined further on, is clearly identified as a personal opinion, again limiting its significance.

Upon reflection, it is evident that no particular, historical symbol peculiar to one religion tradition could be the "central event" of which Tillich is thinking. If revelation is to be united, it cannot be through the concrete symbols of the recognized religions; these are irreconcilable. (Consider, for example, how most Muslims would react to the suggestion that Jesus be considered the central "event" in religious history!) No historical religious symbol could "unite" the positive aspects of all traditions, save under the assumption that the traditions which did not contain this symbol were inferior to the tradition from which the symbol was taken. Tillich, however, had explicitly renounced this kind of stance.

My own feeling is that what Tillich is referring to here is that "event" which he has told us takes place in the depths of all religions, that moment of protestantism in which the religion itself is recognized as subordinate to the Divine reality which it symbolizes. This factor, a component of all legitimate revelation according to Tillich, unites all revelation in the recognition of its own finitude. This makes a universal theology possible, for it is one point upon which all religions can presumably agree, and which -- once agreed upon -- makes all else relative.

If this is in fact the "event" which Tillich identifies as uniting all revelation, why does he say only that it may exist? Clearly he is convinced that it does exist.

It must be recalled that Tillich is setting forth the presuppositions of a new theology, not the conclusions thereof. The six statements presumably represent the absolute minimum starting point for a universal theology, axioms which any such theology must accept. Evidently Tillich believes that unless one assumes at least the possibility of discovering a unifying event or theme within the diverse religious traditions of humankind, there will be no motive for attempting to do universal theology at all. It would not be necessary, however, to suppose that such a unifying event did in fact exist; the mere possibility is motive enough. Tillich himself seems to have concluded that such an event does indeed exist, but this is a result of work done from this new theological perspective, and not a presupposition of the method.

Thus, Tillich's decision to "separate himself" from all exclusivistic theologies is based upon ideas which are not truly new for him. The four assumptions on which that decision rests can be reduced to: Divine infinitude, the inability of finite humans to grasp the Divine, and the recognition of this inability that lies "in the depths" of all religious traditions. These ideas were all developed in earlier stages of Tillich's thought. Thus, the relativism expressed in this final essay is less a sudden change of heart than it is a natural evolution of his ideas. In essence, it is simply a more radical application of the protestant principle.

The results of this more radical application are striking. Here, for the first time in Tillich's thought, there is no claim that Christianity is somehow more protestant than any other tradition. In the entire essay there is only one statement of this type. Having described what an ideal religion would consist of, Tillich says that "we cannot identify this [ideal religion] with any actual religion, not even Christianity as a religion. But I would dare to say, of course, dare as a Protestant theologian, that there is no higher expression [of this ideal religion] than that of Paul's doctrine of the Spirit."22

Clearly, Tillich is here speaking for himself, and more significantly, for himself as a Protestant theologian. What does this mean? If Tillich now believes that there is no inherent difference between Christianity and other religions, what is the significance of his continuing to identify himself as a Protestant? And what does he consider to be the significance of what he, as a Protestant, says to those who are not of his faith? The answers to these questions are suggested in the final paragraph of his essay, which I quote in full.

quote:
But now my last word. What does this mean for [one's] relationship to the religion of which one is a theologian? Such a theology remains rooted in its experiential basis. Without this, no theology at all is possible. But it tries to formulate the basic experiences which are universally valid in universally valid statements. The universality of a religious statement does not lie in an all-embracing abstraction which would destroy religion as such, but it lies in the depths of every concrete religion. Above all it lies in the openness to spiritual freedom both from one's own foundation and for one's own foundation.23

In this admittedly difficult passage, what I take Tillich to be saying is that theology grows out of the personal experience of the theologian. Every theology is someone's theology -- and if Protestant symbols are central to that person's religious experience, then that person can only be a Protestant theologian. The discovery that Protestantism is not inherently superior to other religions does not imply that such a person should abandon Protestantism. Instead, the theologian continues to work out of his or her own tradition. Now, however, the theologian seeks to express that aspect of Protestantism which has significance beyond Protestantism -- knowing that, in their most profound moments, all religions negate themselves in favor of that selfsame Reality which all attempt to express. In this way, the theologian can hope to be of service to all faith.

quote:

V. Afterword

In the final years of his life, Paul Tillich found a way to admit the relative validity of all religions and yet remain a Christian. If that were the only conclusion to which this paper could come, it would be of scant interest to any but Tillich scholars.

No less important than Tillich's conclusion, however, is the way in which he reached it. Tillich's relativism derives from a few very basic suppositions, reducible in essence to the simple notion that human beings are not capable of fully comprehending the nature of the Sacred -- a notion with which Tillich believed all religions would ultimately agree. If Tillich is correct on this last point, then his "last word" to the religious community represents a potent weapon for those who would combat religious intolerance and fanaticism. Here, in theory, is an argument for religious relativism whose only premise is one which any religious person would accept -- an argument that manages to be relativistic without, as Tillich puts it, destroying religion as such.

Is Tillich correct when he claims that all religions have a protestant principle hidden in their depths? I suspect that he is not far wrong. One has only to think of the ways in which various religions speak of their respective
"Ultimates" -- of Brahman, who is "not this, not that"; of Tao, which ceases to be Tao if grasped; of Nirvana, which cannot be described even by negation -- to see Tillich's pattern emerging. The discovery is hardly new; Rudolf Otto established "mystery" as a characteristic of the Holy more than half a century ago. There are counter-cases, to be sure. But so long as Tillich is even partly right, his argument has the potential to be of great practical importance.

To say that all religions have protestantism "in their depths" is not to say that most followers of those religions recognize its presence. Divergence between the theoretical doctrines of religion and the actual beliefs of religious persons is a commonplace. Before Tillich's argument could have widespread effect even among theologians, much work would have to be done to draw the appropriate teachings up from the "depths" of the world's religions, Christianity included. Tillich knew this; indeed, he called us to precisely this task. It is a task of daunting proportions. Yet in an era when religion is once again proving its potential to be among the most divisive of human institutions, have we any choice but to begin?

# ? Apr 13, 2024 16:28

nice obelisk idiot: May 18, 2023; funerary linens looking like dishrags

Thanks for sharing. That isn't far from stuff that I've seen expressed in people who have practiced other religions deeply. Hakuin's discipline Torei Enji viewed Buddhism as basically a technology, and beyond that, a symptom of a sickness.

So animist views like in Shinto alone were totally adequate in the distant past, as people's lives were simple and harsh, and people could grasp things in that method. But it became something of a shadow of its former self as people became less connected to nature. Then later on there were currents like Confucianism, Vedic Brahmanism, Taoism etc that better allowed people to infer the truth in new, more complex contexts. But the main current of worldly life adapted to those too, and their radical power was to some degree left behind.

And that's mirrored within Buddhism: practicing in the way outlined in the Agamas and in Theravada Buddhism was supposed to put one on the trajectory towards seeing the purpose behind all of it. Eventually the Lotus Sutra was like finally like okay, people are really screwing up, mask off. The core teaching is compassion. Words and religious texts are only provisional tricks (symbols), learning and growing must be assumed to be a continuous process that extends forever, everyone has something to teach us, even the worst people.

And even that was corrupted into something that is largely compartmentalized and put on a shelf. It will ultimately die out without people to rekindle it and embody it.

Despite the fact that there was an apparent supercession of views, he didn't think that it invalidated earlier ones. So in Torei's mind, a person who sees clearly, and really embodies the teachings of say Shinto is in a way better state than the vast, vast majority of Buddhists, even though the later derives from "higher" teachings.

nice obelisk idiot has issued a correction as of 21:42 on Apr 13, 2024

# ? Apr 13, 2024 17:42

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Tillich uses the phrasing �the event of Jesus as the Christ� consistently. I don�t think �suppose� is strong enough , �event� is referring to Jesus on the cross.

Sartre has an idea think is useful, the �concrete universal�. Think of the concrete universal like a platonic form that is a existing thing. Sartre argues that building the concrete universal is the goal of the philosopher and the atheists real final project. And this is used to move existentialism into a humanism (and socialism).

Religion has a ground of Being which is the concrete universal and but it is a content of revelation. it�s not built (because it�s impossible to build it) it�s spoken by God as revelation. that�s the event. His definition of faith as Ultimate Concern is structurally identical to Sartre�s Final Project (Tillich is first though and the two are ontologically inverted).

The event is the object of Ultimate Concern for Tillich, and �there may be -- and I stress this, there may be -- � is his doubt in it.

but if one looks at his writings on Origen and the development of the Logos doctrine, this idea of relativism comes up while he is lecturing at Harvard. The reason Origen isn�t a church Father despite assembling the canon and creating theology as a thing (advancing the logos doctrine from Apology to systematic theology) is because Origen�s cosmology had the potential open for other hypostasis.

In reaction to that potential and eventually adopted at Nicea there is a reaction. Tillich ends the lecture on Origen describing how Origen�s theology causes a problem with Jesus having a preexisting existing divine nature, instead Jesus is like a container that fills up with Being then has unity with God. He ends that lecture with this: �This of course is the negation of the Divine nature of the Savior. This shows what made him a heretic, although many people of that time and perhaps even of today would prefer to follow him.�

I think in �perhaps even of today� he is referring to himself. If he does share this with Origen that�s the door, it doesn�t negate the event of Jesus, it potentially negates the uniqueness of the event of Jesus as the Christ. There could be other revealed concrete universals.

Bar Ran Dun has issued a correction as of 18:07 on Apr 13, 2024

# ? Apr 13, 2024 18:02

Farg: Nov 19, 2013

how do i cast a loving spell

# ? Apr 13, 2024 18:59

Squizzle: Apr 24, 2008

Farg posted:

how do i cast a loving spell

LITERALLY A BIRD posted:

I've found you an excellent method for casting out demons, in the name of fan favorite deity Jesus the Christ to help keep mainstream practitioners comfortable. So now all you need to do is find someone who is currently possessed by a succubus spirit, exorcise them, and then I guess recapture and/or strike a consensual deal with the newly manifest succubus entity, for fellatio. Then you should be all set.

I hope your Coptic is good. Best of luck

# ? Apr 13, 2024 19:11

Squizzle: Apr 24, 2008

LITERALLY A BIRD posted:

III. "Encountering" the World Religions posted:
The position outlined in this work is somewhat ambiguous. He states that Christianity must reject other religions "insofar as they contradict the Christian principle." This action, however, should not be unilateral, but should involve "a dialectic union of rejection and acceptance."

this is applying the basic dialectic of apotropaïc mysticism to academic theology. its ambiguöus only if you come at it from the academic angle—approaching it as mysticism makes it uh not subtle

# ? Apr 13, 2024 19:15

polycritical: Mar 7, 2024

We cast spells every day. It's just that, if we thought of it that way, we'd be like "dang, why do i keep casting these lovely rear end spells"

# ? Apr 13, 2024 21:35

Ohtori Akio: Jul 15, 2022

sounds like your posts no..?

# ? Apr 13, 2024 21:37

polycritical: Mar 7, 2024

I stand before you all now as a poster, owned

# ? Apr 13, 2024 21:43

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 30, 2024 01:26

Squizzle: Apr 24, 2008

sit down

# ? Apr 13, 2024 21:45

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > multidenominational witchcraft thread: because demonocracy has succeeded

«‹›29 »