Hi Krimel, you said: The alternative is the inerrancy (sic - that ain't in the dictionary) crowd that turns scripture into tea leaves, tarot cards and goat entrails.
I take it you don't like i-ching then either. I do not believe in the supernatural but I still cannot shake off my years long fascination with the i-ching. I rarely consult that oracle with a question but I have analysed its workings It is like flicking a series of definitely biased coins each one with a cumulative overall significance to get a smell of the randomness/orderliness of the dilemma of the moment. -Peter 2008/9/24 Krimel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > DM, > Well I suppose I actually am a social challenged "you know what" but never > the less, the blurring of those lines is something of an issue. Liberal > theologians on the extreme do tend to sound a lot more like philosophers > than preachers. Witness process theology which grew out of Whitehead. Or > liberation theology which tends to look like politics. The problem is that > once theologian move away from grounding their work in particular passages > of divine revelation they find themselves on no firmer ground that > philosophers. They become unable to say that "this is so because God > says..." They must appeal to the same sorts of rational and empirical > proofs > as folks in every other discipline. Stripped of divine underpinning > parishioners are left wondering what "authority" commands them to pay heed. > > The alternative is the inerrancy crowd that turns scripture into tea > leaves, > tarot cards and goat entrails. They peer into ancient writings and insist > that their particular reading of divine writ comes from on high. For what > it's worth I regard such readings as blasphemous. They turn scripture into > an idol which must be treated with the reverence of a divine presence. > > Krimel > > -----Original Message----- > From: David M [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 4:27 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [MD] MOQ and some interesting a-theology quotes about non-gods > > Hi Krim > > I wonder. I certainly have no interest in pews. My point is that the far > out > end of theology does have some meeting points with MOQ and is > exploring the same possibilities. Same goes for postmodernism of > course. Same goes for Nicholas Maxwell. I certainly agree we'd all > be better off (believers, non-believers, and even sophisticated > people like me who are neither) doing our best to come to terms with > as much hard thinking and knowledge as we can lay our hands on. > Mind you, you gotta have a heart too, unless you are a socially > challenged you know what. > > David M > > > > DM, > > I have long hoped that theologians like Cupitt and other members of the > > Jesus Seminar would have some impact on Christianity. Christianity today > > seems weighted down by its reflexive reaction to Darwinism in the form of > > inerrancy. It is a turtle retracting into its hard safe shell where light > > and reason need not intrude on its peace of mind. > > > > A couple of people you might find interesting are Steven Mitchell who is > > something of a new ager. In his "Gospel According to Jesus" he follows > > Jefferson's example and edits the four gospels in a very interesting way. > > Reading it you get a better feeling for the wisdom of Jesus. > > > > Marcus Borg also talks about Jesus as a "spirit person" along the lines > of > > Buddha or Lao Tsu. He sees him as one having an intimate and personal > > relationship with the Father. For me, Borg helped show the way for > > Christianity to actually make some sense by striping away the more > > superstitious aspects and getting to the really important parts. His 1997 > > book "Jesus and Buddha: The Parallel Sayings" put the words or Jesus and > > the > > Buddha side by side and blurs the distinctions between them. > > > > The real problem in the pews is that once you strip away the superstition > > the pews tend to empty. The decline of the mainline denominations really > > resulted in large measure from their more liberal theology. They provided > > what Time magazine once called a theological justification for > > agnosticism. > > The rise of the religious right filled in the gap by ignoring the head > and > > appealing directly to the heart and gut. > > > > Krimel > > > > Hi all MOQers > > > > Just been reading Nigel Leaves book about the UK ordained theology > > Cambridge > > > > fellow Don Cupitt called Odyssey on the Sea of Faith. Cupitt made a TV > > programme called the Sea of Faith in 1984 that introduced me to Nietzsche > > and Jung and intellectual history generally. Don is an interesting > > theologian, who many consider as being an ordained atheist. He describes > > himself these days as a post-modern thinker and as a post-Christian > > creative > > > > religions thinker. Check him out on WIki if you like. In the US he is > > associated with the Jesus seminar and the Weststar institute. He is > > interested in Buddhism and anti-essentialist thinking and calls himself a > > non-realist. Anyway, here are some quotes from Don given in Nigel Leaves > > book. There are some very interesting points that seem very close to the > > MOQ. The first two from his book Mysticism after Modernism, the third > from > > The Religion of Being (that is largely about Heidegger and is very > > interesting and MOQ relevant) and the 4th quote is from a letter to Nigel > > Leaves. Cupitt is very strong on the value of change or DQ, and how the > > linguistic turn fits in with MOQ friendly notions of experience. For > > Cupitt > > religious experience should be found at the leading edge of > > now-experience. > > Anyway see for yourselves what he has to say below. By the way, despite > > the > > below, he is disinclined to think the word god is very useful these days. > > Once again the really out-there talk of god sounds like talk of DQ to me, > > especially when theologians even question whether the word god is really > a > > very good one to be using. > > > > David M > > > > > > > > "The older "platonic" kind of mysticism was usually claimed to be noetic > - > > by which I mean that people saw religious experience as a special > > supernatural way of knowing something Higher that was itself > > correspondingly > > > > super-natural . . .But now, with the end of metaphysics and two-worlds > > dualism . . .we should give up the idea that mysticism is a special > > wordless > > > > way of intuitively knowing the things of another and higher world . . . > > The > > mysticism of secondariness is mysticism minus metaphysics, mysticism > minus > > any claim to special or privileged knowledge, and mysticism without any > > other world than this one. We now get . . . that feeling of eternal > > happiness, not by contrast with, but directly off everything that is > > merely > > relative, secondary, derived, transient, sensuous and only skin-deep. We > > have quite forgotten the old hunger for what is basic, rock-solid, > certain > > and unchangeable: we are content with fluidity and mortality . . . > > Relativism should not be a bogey to us: it is true, and religiously > > speaking > > > > it is good news . . . Why shouldn't we just give up the idea that there's > > something wrong with being secondary and fleeting?" > > > > "Esse est deus is Eckhart's formula; Be-ing is God. Here, I suggest, we > > should (with Martin Heidegger perhaps) locate Eckhart's idea of God. > > Be-ing, > > > > life, the outpouring play of secondariness in the Now-moment: that is as > > close as language, or we, can ever get to God . . . We experience > > everything, totalized into the Now-moment; eternal happiness in the solar > > efflux of pure contingency. All eternity, here and now . .. All we have > to > > do is to get our own relation to existence right. Just get on the leading > > edge of the Now-moment and wait very still and attentive, until you find > > yourself beginning to surf it . . . Eckhart has found a way of writing > > religious happiness." > > > > By Being Heidgger means: > > > > "...pure groundless fleeing contingency, already passing away even as it > > arrives, which is why Being does resemble God in allowing us only to see > > its > > > > "back parts." Capital-B Being is being that is prior to any > determination, > > pure transience. It cannot be described in language and it cannot be > > grasped > > > > in thought; but it is always presupposed by language, and it sustains > > language. It gives itself to us, and it emerges within language. We know > > nothing but the field of view, the field of our own experience. This > field > > is differentiated by language into a field of Be-ing in beings. So Being > > comes out in our world, the world of language, the only world." > > > > > > > > "On non-language, everyone seems to find the point hard to grasp. I've > > argued that all our thinking is transacted in language . . . Therefore > all > > our apprehension of the world is language-mediated. But in that case > > what's > > the difference between a complete description of A and A's actual > > existence? > > > > We can't say in words, so we use the non-words "non-language" of Being > > (under erasure). Being (under erasure) is prior to the distinction > between > > Plato's timeless Being and temporal becoming. So it may be written as > > Be(com)ing. It is the indescribable, gentle, constant-yet-only-contingent > > forthcomingness of everything. Being (under erasure) gives itself to > > language. Being (under erasure) is not a thing, not even a proper noun, > > but > > it deserves religious respect . . .It is not an Almighty Lord, as God > was. > > It is immanent and ubiquitous. It supports our language as hot air > > supports > > a balloon . . . we do indeed need a sort-of-idea of something out there > > beyond all the equations; but it must remain indescribable and purely > > immanent." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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/ > > > > 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/ > > > > > 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/ > > 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/ > 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/
