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

Re: Tillich and the Demiurge

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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.