We're back on line! But where are all the recent contributions? And what about an explanation from OLO?
Bushbasher: "obviously ethical societies require more sense of the universe than "we're all just a bunch of atoms". and obviously as soon as one does that, you get into deep (and shallow) philosophy, of the nature of life, humanness, thought, meaning, truth, morality, the whole thing. but, i'm not sure what you mean by "transcendental", or if you're quoting. again, it doesn't help to make stuff up, especially gods".
You describe the problem perfectly, BB. Of course the Western philosophical tradition is replete with talk of transcendentalism, especially since Kant's "transcendental unity of apperception", which Hegel then morphed into idealism, the whole lot since having been discredtied both by the analytic wing of philosophy and preeminently by the posts: modernism and structuralism. The trouble is deconstruction, while a God-sent for human hubris, leaves the human condition more desolate than ever, and many individuals eager to join the ranks of the converted. This actually makes Bellah's prescription preferable--and Sells is definitely pegging out the new trend; Christianity will morph as never before, driven as it is by market forces. It's not far fetched to predict that mainstream Christian doctrine will be as poll-driven as political policy in the future.
I'm certainly not suggesting we "make anything up", but there are plausible discourses of meaning that can be explored that are also rational, and not subject to the markets. According to the tenets of modern philosophy, it's quite acceptable for humanity to posit its own metanarrative, but I would suggest that a natural extension is not out of the question.
Transcendentalism doesn't necessarily mean metaphysics. Transcending culture is an impossible dream according to the experts, and our biology is the ultimate determinism according to the boffins. I'm a sceptic on both counts.
Sells, I don't hate. Of course you must know, as someone has suggested, that research means exploring the antithetical arguments as well? Otherwise, it's just not research.

Dear david f,

I think you may have missed my original reply, (refer: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9564#153961)
where I’ve corrected an incorrect link address i.e. #12521. My apologies.

Sells,
I think you greatly underestimate Tillich. Carl Jung and Tillich were both influenced by German Mystic Jacob Boehme (15th Cent) as a common ‘spiritual ancestor’, and to differing degrees, allowed his thinking into a major part of their own evolving thought process.

Tillich basically recasts the ontological argument in psychological terms(using depth psychology)and affirms that humanity’s experience of God is universal. In the first and third volumes of his‘systematic Theology’,Tillich twice argues that the specifically Christian doctrine of Trinity, elaborated over the centuries in the wake of the Christ event, has a natural basis in humanity’s native“intuition”of God. The ontological argument thus points not only to God but also to Trinity. Tillich can then go on to give near poetic descriptions of humanity’s natural sense of the Trinitarian ground of human life. The first ‘moment’,highly reminiscent of Boehm’s description of the Father as a living hell to which the fallen angels regressed, is a“chaos”,“a burning fire”,irrational or pre-rational, potentially demonic in isolation from the light of the Logos (the 2nd moment),inaccessible in its magnificent seclusion,the“naked absolute”so threatening to Luther that he is alleged to have thrown his ink-well at it…“Spirit”, as the third moment in divine life, is the agency which unites the conflicted opposites.

Tillich paints a road to universal compassion, where the current ‘cross’ could well demand the death of humanity’s adolescent religiosity, especially that of the monotheistic theisms, to a resurrected consciousness - able and willing to deepen the appropriation of its own cherished religious symbols through the appreciation of others in a process without a completion, or even the hope for one in human history. This mythic consciousness is the substance of Tillich's final appeal to“an openness to spiritual freedom, both from one's own foundation and for one’s own foundation.” Such imagery is certainly not for everyone to see (or may even wish to see) – nevertheless it seems to be a persistent if not evolving, growing image for many.

Dear relda.

Which of your many responses is http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7816#12521. I can find the string, but I don't know how to pick out #12521.

Dear relda, How does one pick out http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9564#153961?

Sells

You seem to have no comprehension of any view but your own. By all means discuss Trinitarian language because that is what you understand but you would be wise to keep it positive and desist from deprecating the views and beliefs of others whose faith does not conform to your particular understanding of God.

Trinitarian language works in the framework of certain Christian liturgical traditions. Unfortunately, outside that context it has been reduced to concrete, systematic, theological dogma which has little or no meaning in the 21st century. The more you explain it, 'systematise' it, 'psychologise' it and so on the more meaningless you render it.

As religious 'language' it was born of violence. Throughout its history it has inspired and supported violence. Your narcissistic dismissal of all other views but your own clearly demonstrates the violent disposition of the culture of domination that you represent and which has, since the time of Constantine, waved the Trinitarian flag.

Dear david f,

Go back to my post of almost a couple hours ago and hover your mouse pointer over the hyperlink - then "click", and presto you should be taken directly to the posting. I've checked and the links all appear to be working.