Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Tillich and the Demiurge

Expand Messages
  • Verna Leigh Johnson
    Sounds like Tillich studied the Kaballah at some point. Where did you get your info? Is there a link? blessings and peas DarkChylde ... the ... was a ...
    Message 1 of 5 , Aug 9, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Sounds like Tillich studied the Kaballah at some point. Where did
      you get your info? Is there a link?
      blessings and peas
      DarkChylde


      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Mark" <larockpitts@...> wrote:
      >
      > Paul Tillich (1868-1965), a liberal Christian theologian, felt that
      the
      > concept of a "Personal God" as held by many main-line Christians
      was a
      > concept that destroyed any meaningful idea of God. Instead, he
      spoke
      > of a "God" that was above this personal God, a "God above God,"
      which
      > he understood as the "Ground of Being." Since all language, when
      it
      > comes to describing God, is metaphorical and reflects the culture
      in
      > which it arose, I am wondering if Tillich--not intentionally or
      > consciously--is merely restating, in the philosophical/theological
      > idiom of his day, the Gnostic teaching, expressed in the
      > philosophical/theological idiom of their day, of the God that is
      > behind/above the creator God/Demiurge. I don't think Tillich
      explicitly
      > called this "Personal God" evil, but he did see it as limiting and
      > destructive to spirituality--a God that we had to "get beyond" to
      find
      > the true God.
      >
      > Also, thank you Cari for your thoughtful answer to my previous post-
      -
      > the three levels of initiation and their correlation to the temple
      is
      > very interesting.
      >
      > Thanks,
      > Mark
      >
    • Mark
      DarkChylde, I do not know if Tillich ever studied Kaballah. The information below came out Karen Armstrong s, The History of God, pp. 382-383. Mark ... that
      Message 2 of 5 , Aug 9, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        DarkChylde,

        I do not know if Tillich ever studied Kaballah. The information
        below came out Karen Armstrong's, The History of God, pp. 382-383.

        Mark

        --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Verna Leigh Johnson"
        <imdarkchylde@...> wrote:
        >
        > Sounds like Tillich studied the Kaballah at some point. Where did
        > you get your info? Is there a link?
        > blessings and peas
        > DarkChylde
        >
        >
        > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Mark" <larockpitts@> wrote:
        > >
        > > Paul Tillich (1868-1965), a liberal Christian theologian, felt
        that
        > the
        > > concept of a "Personal God" as held by many main-line Christians
        > was a
        > > concept that destroyed any meaningful idea of God. Instead, he
        > spoke
        > > of a "God" that was above this personal God, a "God above God,"
        > which
        > > he understood as the "Ground of Being." Since all language, when
        > it
        > > comes to describing God, is metaphorical and reflects the culture
        > in
        > > which it arose, I am wondering if Tillich--not intentionally or
        > > consciously--is merely restating, in the
        philosophical/theological
        > > idiom of his day, the Gnostic teaching, expressed in the
        > > philosophical/theological idiom of their day, of the God that is
        > > behind/above the creator God/Demiurge. I don't think Tillich
        > explicitly
        > > called this "Personal God" evil, but he did see it as limiting
        and
        > > destructive to spirituality--a God that we had to "get beyond" to
        > find
        > > the true God.
        > >
        > > Also, thank you Cari for your thoughtful answer to my previous
        post-
        > -
        > > the three levels of initiation and their correlation to the
        temple
        > is
        > > very interesting.
        > >
        > > Thanks,
        > > Mark
        > >
        >
      • Mark
        It appears that others have also made this connection between Tillich and his idea of a God beyond God with the Gnostic understanding of God. Some of the
        Message 3 of 5 , Aug 11, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          It appears that others have also made this connection between Tillich
          and his idea of "a God beyond God" with the Gnostic understanding of
          God.

          "Some of the Gnostic views of cosmology were different than both
          Jewish and Christian traditional interpretations. Like Paul Tillich,
          they asked the question is there a "God beyond God"? So in their
          attempt to define or explain evil , they said there was a more
          perfect God than the one who created and observes all the evil on
          earth. Is our God too small? Maybe as Tillich questioned there is a
          God beyond the God we create."
          http://gnosticschristians.com/wst_page4.html

          The Genesis Factor, by Stephan A. Hoeller
          "While the concept of two Gods is horrifying to the monotheistically
          conditioned mind, it is not illogical or improbable. Modem
          theologians, particularly Paul Tillich, have boldly referred to "the
          God above God." Tillich introduced the term "ground of being" as
          alternative language to express the divine. The ideas of the old
          Gnostics seem not so outdated after all."
          http://www.gnosis.org/genesis.html

          It also seems that even during Tillich's lifetime he was accused of
          being a "modern Gnostic" and did his best to refute this.

          Mark

          --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Mark" <larockpitts@...> wrote:
          >
          > Paul Tillich (1868-1965), a liberal Christian theologian, felt that
          the
          > concept of a "Personal God" as held by many main-line Christians
          was a
          > concept that destroyed any meaningful idea of God. Instead, he
          spoke
          > of a "God" that was above this personal God, a "God above God,"
          which
          > he understood as the "Ground of Being." Since all language, when
          it
          > comes to describing God, is metaphorical and reflects the culture
          in
          > which it arose, I am wondering if Tillich--not intentionally or
          > consciously--is merely restating, in the philosophical/theological
          > idiom of his day, the Gnostic teaching, expressed in the
          > philosophical/theological idiom of their day, of the God that is
          > behind/above the creator God/Demiurge. I don't think Tillich
          explicitly
          > called this "Personal God" evil, but he did see it as limiting and
          > destructive to spirituality--a God that we had to "get beyond" to
          find
          > the true God.
          >
          > Also, thank you Cari for your thoughtful answer to my previous post-
          -
          > the three levels of initiation and their correlation to the temple
          is
          > very interesting.
          >
          > Thanks,
          > Mark
          >
        • Verna Leigh Johnson
          This reminded me of something I saw quoted in someone s signature (can t remember where) but it said, I say there are many gods, but one God of all these gods,
          Message 4 of 5 , Aug 11, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            This reminded me of something I saw quoted in someone's signature
            (can't remember where) but it said,
            I say there are many gods, but one God of all these gods,
            incomprehensible and unknown to all, ... a Power of immeasurable and
            ineffable Light, whose greatness is held to be incomprehensible, a
            Tower which the maker of the world does not know.
            I don't know what the quote was from.
            blessings and peas
            DarkCHylde


            --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Mark" <larockpitts@...> wrote:
            >
            > It appears that others have also made this connection between
            Tillich
            > and his idea of "a God beyond God" with the Gnostic understanding
            of
            > God.
            >
            > "Some of the Gnostic views of cosmology were different than both
            > Jewish and Christian traditional interpretations. Like Paul
            Tillich,
            > they asked the question is there a "God beyond God"? So in their
            > attempt to define or explain evil , they said there was a more
            > perfect God than the one who created and observes all the evil on
            > earth. Is our God too small? Maybe as Tillich questioned there is
            a
            > God beyond the God we create."
            > http://gnosticschristians.com/wst_page4.html
            >
            > The Genesis Factor, by Stephan A. Hoeller
            > "While the concept of two Gods is horrifying to the
            monotheistically
            > conditioned mind, it is not illogical or improbable. Modem
            > theologians, particularly Paul Tillich, have boldly referred
            to "the
            > God above God." Tillich introduced the term "ground of being" as
            > alternative language to express the divine. The ideas of the old
            > Gnostics seem not so outdated after all."
            > http://www.gnosis.org/genesis.html
            >
            > It also seems that even during Tillich's lifetime he was accused of
            > being a "modern Gnostic" and did his best to refute this.
            >
            > Mark
            >
            > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Mark" <larockpitts@> wrote:
            > >
            > > Paul Tillich (1868-1965), a liberal Christian theologian, felt
            that
            > the
            > > concept of a "Personal God" as held by many main-line Christians
            > was a
            > > concept that destroyed any meaningful idea of God. Instead, he
            > spoke
            > > of a "God" that was above this personal God, a "God above God,"
            > which
            > > he understood as the "Ground of Being." Since all language, when
            > it
            > > comes to describing God, is metaphorical and reflects the culture
            > in
            > > which it arose, I am wondering if Tillich--not intentionally or
            > > consciously--is merely restating, in the
            philosophical/theological
            > > idiom of his day, the Gnostic teaching, expressed in the
            > > philosophical/theological idiom of their day, of the God that is
            > > behind/above the creator God/Demiurge. I don't think Tillich
            > explicitly
            > > called this "Personal God" evil, but he did see it as limiting
            and
            > > destructive to spirituality--a God that we had to "get beyond" to
            > find
            > > the true God.
            > >
            > > Also, thank you Cari for your thoughtful answer to my previous
            post-
            > -
            > > the three levels of initiation and their correlation to the
            temple
            > is
            > > very interesting.
            > >
            > > Thanks,
            > > Mark
            > >
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.