Re: Tillich and the Demiurge
- 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
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Mark" <larockpitts@...> wrote:
> It appears that others have also made this connection between
> and his idea of "a God beyond God" with the Gnostic understanding
> "Some of the Gnostic views of cosmology were different than both
> Jewish and Christian traditional interpretations. Like Paul
> 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
> God beyond the God we create."
> The Genesis Factor, by Stephan A. Hoeller
> "While the concept of two Gods is horrifying to the
> conditioned mind, it is not illogical or improbable. Modem
> theologians, particularly Paul Tillich, have boldly referred
> 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 Gnostics seem not so outdated after all."
> It also seems that even during Tillich's lifetime he was accused of
> being a "modern Gnostic" and did his best to refute this.
> --- In email@example.com, "Mark" <larockpitts@> wrote:
> > Paul Tillich (1868-1965), a liberal Christian theologian, felt
> > concept of a "Personal God" as held by many main-line Christians
> was a
> > concept that destroyed any meaningful idea of God. Instead, he
> > of a "God" that was above this personal God, a "God above God,"
> > he understood as the "Ground of Being." Since all language, when
> > comes to describing God, is metaphorical and reflects the culture
> > which it arose, I am wondering if Tillich--not intentionally or
> > consciously--is merely restating, in the
> > 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
> > called this "Personal God" evil, but he did see it as limiting
> > destructive to spirituality--a God that we had to "get beyond" to
> > the true God.
> > Also, thank you Cari for your thoughtful answer to my previous
> > the three levels of initiation and their correlation to the
> > very interesting.
> > Thanks,
> > Mark