David

Each of our senses 'distorts' information about the reality around us in one way or another. Sight and hearing are limited to certain frequencies and so on. The prism metaphor is an excellent metaphor for all of our perceptions of reality because it acknowledges the fact of distortions.

In theology, as in journalism, history and so on it is important and of great ethical importance to acknowledge the limitations of our 'perceptions' and admit our biases. Therefore I commend George for his use of the 'prism' metaphor as it exemplifies the honesty, integrity and thoughtful presentation of ideas that characterises all his posts.

I reserve my contempt for those who purport to be giving balanced views while concealing their own biases and motives and pretending to have 'perfect perception'. I trust someone who says "This is where I am coming from and this is what I believe." over the phonies who say "Believe me! I know the truth because I have seen it with my own eyes.".

And Sells last post was a bit of an eye-popper wasnt it? Quite an extended string of Christian cliches. I guess this is a consequence of his propensity to discursive discourse on matters that are better approached through metaphorical language and dialogue. What, for instance, does "... God the Father reveals himself in the Son in the power of the Spirit." mean?

David,
Maybe you are right, prism is a wrong metaphor. In my dictionary, prism is also “used figuratively with reference to the clarification or distortion afforded by a particular viewpoint”. I obviously ignored the “or distortion” part of it. On the other hand, waterboy thinks it is appropriate, and I again appreciate his explanatory comments.

Anyhow, I picked “prism” on the fly while writing the post. In my original writings (not in English) I used the split-image focusing in (old) SLR cameras: the camera used to depict reality is neither part of the observer (not “subjective“) nor part of reality (not “objective“) but a mediating tool. So perhaps “lens” might be a better metaphor to describe what I have in mid with the triad aesthetic-rational-ethical, or the pair Yin-Yang or the dynamic trio thesis-antithesis-synthesis.

As for Sells’ exposé, you are certainly not the only one who does not understand (his) theology, although other people would not describe culturally entrenched symbolism they cannot comprehend the way you did. (I could not quote you, because the OLO ordered me to “remove the profanity”.) Nevertheless I have to agree with waterboy that Peter’s writings are indeed sometimes very hard to make sense of. One has to have some familiarity with the symbols involved to understand the meaning of their purported interaction, and I think this applies especially to theology.

I know from my own experience that there is also a lot of pure mathematics - by itself also only symbols of physical reality - that an outsider cannot comprehend. Nevertheless, it is necessary to describe (to model) this physical reality in order to have an understanding of it, and possibly make use of this understanding. Something similar might be true about the symbolic world of theology that models the extended, “Ultimate“ reality, that encompasses also us - individuals as well as humanity as such - and perhaps also something extra, that science, including psychology, cannot reach.

Correction. Pllease replace the ambiguous

“Nevertheless, it is necessary to describe (to model) this physical reality in order to have an understanding of it, and possibly make use of this understanding“

with

“Nevertheless, mathematics is needed to describe (to model) this physical reality in order to have an understanding of it, (and possibly make practical use of this understanding)“.

George, waterboy et al,
Symbolic representation combined with Tilich's, “who are willing to look in the same direction” give an important underlying dimension. Tillich freely recognizes that the "Spiritual Presence" is experienced in all religions – his “protestant principle”, however, follows and evolves from Augustine, through to Luther to the present.

Tillich, as with others was willing to be drawn out of isolation by meeting adherents of other faiths (I imagine Sells draws exception to this): "An existential contact with outstanding representatives of non-Christian religions forces one into the acknowledgment that God is not far from them, that there is a universal revelation." Tillich suggests that the Eastern understanding of reality leads to "a profound compassion for the universality of suffering under all dimensions of life." The Bodhisattva's path to disinterested compassion for all beings comes from the same sort of ego-transcendence Tillich ascribes to Jesus.

Tillich's theology grew from the orthodox - it forms his underlying basis, but he cautions that people who try to deny the symbolic nature of the language begin to worship the symbol rather than the infinite God: “Faith, if it takes its symbols literally, becomes idolatrous! It calls something ultimate which is less than ultimate” The philosopher, according to Tillich, in seeking truth about the structure of being "looks at the whole of reality" and tries to grasp "the universal logos," while the theologian "must look where that which concerns him ultimately is manifest," that is, "at the logos manifesting itself in a particular historical event." Tillich contends that all created possibility is expressed in its essential perfection by the father in the Logos. In a similar fashion, Teilhard contends that a theory of creation which cannot be shown to complete the Godhead both devalues creation and cripples human creativity within it.

Tillich, like Teilhard, considers the Alpha to be the Christ, standing outside time, yet entering somehow into Creation. In line with our topic it is worthy to note, the philosophers of the early Church saw Christ as the embodiment of the Sophia as well as the Incarnation of the Logos.

Relda, when are you people going to realise that God is the creation of Man and not that Man is the creation of God. As Gore Vidal once reminded us, "Man has made God in his own image".

David

David,
I take heart, in a strange way, from Friedrich Nietzeche, the famous atheist and ardent enemy of religion and Christianity - he knew more about the power of the idea of God than many faithful Christians. Understand the symbolic story of Zarathustra who says to the Ugliest Man, the murderer of God, "You could not bear him to see you, always to see you through and through... You took revenge on the witness... You are the murderer of God."

"..Why try to escape from a reality of which we are a part? There is no reason to flee from a god who is nothing more than a benevolent father, a father who guarantees our immortality and final happiness. Why try to escape from someone who serves us so well? No, those are not pictures of God, but rather of man, trying to make God in his own image and for his own comfort. They are the products of man's imagination and wishful thinking, justly denied by every honest atheist. A god whom we can easily bear, a god from whom we do not have to hide, a god whom we do not hate in moments, a god whose destruction we never desire, is not God at all, and has no reality." - P.T.

Psychiatrists (our modern confessors) are familiar with the tremendous force of resistance in each personality against even trifling self-revelations. Nobody wants to be known, even when the realisation that and salvation depend upon such knowledge. We do not even wish to be known by ourselves. We try to hide the depths of our souls from our own eyes. We refuse to be our own witness.

"The protest against God, the will that there be no God, and the flight to atheism are all genuine elements of profound religion. And only on the basis of these elements has religion meaning and power." - P.T