Dear Oliver,

Creed is the form of a unifying and divisive function in Christianity. Those who accept the creed join together. Those who don't form other groups.

The Abrahamic religions of Judaism and Islam do not have the multiplicity of creedal statements present in Christianity. They have only one apiece. Judaism: Here, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Islam: There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet.

Islam has many divisions, but they are not creedal. One division is the schools of law: Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i and Hanbali. Another is the Sunni and Shi'ah divide based on disagreement as to succession. There are the reform movements of recent history: Wahhabi, Sanusi and Mahdi.

Judaism has many divisions, some extinct or almost extinct like Pharisees, Sadducees, Samaritans, Essenes, Zealots and Karaites, others of more recent history such as Misnagdim, Hassidim (still around) Maskilim others current such as Orthodox, Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist, Haredim and Humanist.

The point of the above is to emphasise the fact that people tend to see all religions (regardless of what thy personally believe) in terms of the religion they are familiar with.

Creedal statements play an important role in Christianity. They are of little consequence in other religions that I know of.

The above does not consider non-theistic religions. It is questionable whether Christianity is a monotheistic religion. Mithraism and the other cults which embodied trinities were openly polytheistic. Trinitarian Christianity is subliminally polytheistic.

Syncretism exists in all religions as far as I know.

Sells,
I guess in response to your last post on this thread, we should take ‘first things first’ and go back to where you were to “give you a fuller response” from you apparent vantage point of being well read in contemporary theology (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9564#154369).I think you should perhaps pay a little closer heed to ‘walking the talk’, but I do thank you for your compliment, where you believe I show “demonstrated theological depth.”

You say that I’m destroying the transcendence of God through quoting Jung along my ‘disturbing path’ (path to where, incidentally?) “The freedom of god must be protected [?]”. Really, Sells, I think that’s a bigger ask than to self-reflect as a part of the “process” Jung suggests.
Some accuse Tillich of a sophisticated form of Sabellianism, as was levelled at him by Allen Killen, professor in Contemporary Reformed Theology – this longwinded sort of title perhaps says it all. To the annoyance of such critics, Tillich asserts that “the resurrection of gods and half-gods is a familiar mythological symbol”. Where the physicality of the Resurrection is maintained, as Tillich goes on to say, “the absurd question arises as to what happened to the molecules which comprise the corpse of Jesus of Nazareth…” The physical theory, as Tillich calls it, has no religious significance. These critics also add that while his (Tillich’s) ‘system’ is ‘long on metaphysical exactness and existential relatedness’ it is ‘short on biblical concreteness and theological precision’ – for me, this sounds more like the type of criticism one might level from within a straightjacket made from dogma.

Interestingly, the original chief critic of Sabellianism was Tertullian, who labeled the movement "Patripassianism", from the Latin word "pater" for "father". Tertulian, in his later life, converted to Montanism, a strong precursor of Pentecostalism (which some call Neo-Montanism). It (Montanism) claimed to be a religion of the Holy Spirit and was marked by ecstatic outbursts which it regarded as the only true form of Christianity – just who are we to believe Sells?

Sells and Relda,

Where Jung and Tillich might find some common ground is the significance of symbols and how religion is temporally defined by humans. Only God knows God. Apart from valid (to theists) recognition of the transcendental of God, humans can give only secondary explanations about God. However, the use of symbols and dogma allow humans to construct theology from symbols of an inferior kind to the true knowledge of God. Herein, Jung would maintain symbols and archetypes are derived from the shared subconscious of humanity and manifest as the universal consciousness. The aforesaid supports the construction of stories from symbols: e.g., the “ascension into heaven” is believed by the theist, without thought to how a primate mammal designed to live on Earth would exist in an other worldly heaven. Great Apes (humans) might be able to live in jungles and modern cities but it is a stretch to say a dimensional Jesus could live in a non-dimensional heaven. In this way, the symbolic story is a contrivance which falls short.

What Sells is worried about, I think, is that the above account can be interpreted to mean that Man defines God. If Man defines God and, God has objective foreknowledge of Man’s interpretation of God, and God agrees, what is “bound on Earth is bound in heaven”. Herein, inverting the relationship between God and Man.

The above is a different account than having God objectively enjoining with the thoughts of Dawkins and the deeds of Stalin. In which case, I think, God is a participant (immanently present) in the expressions of these persons. Perhaps, George would have a duality present (see above) with Dawkins and Stalin resolving superposition in a human way and God in a transcendal way? If so, does this make God and Man subject to the physics God created? Of course, God would be a voluneer and we mere mortals bound to comply.

Oliver,
So far, so good, with your 1st. four sentences… but here’s where I’d diverge, 'the “ascension into heaven” is believed by the theist, without thought to how a primate mammal designed to live on Earth would exist in an other worldly heaven. Great Apes (humans) etc…'. One of Tillich’s major concerns with religion is the seemingly never ending debate on whether a particular event in the Bible is symbol or “literal truth.” The nature of the debate often includes an inference that symbolism and literalism (biblical inerrancy) are mutually exclusive. According to Tillich, they aren’t, and I’d agree, it only serves to eclipse the value of symbolism whose theological truth is not dependent on literalism. Tillich doesn’t believe it is important whether the miracles in the Bible are literally true. He personally questions their basis in fact, as they are contrary to natural law. He believes that God does not unilaterally enter into an event, controlling its outcome.

Sells is more than likely worried about ‘hubris’ before a poor definition (albeit,this would also be somewhat of a 'worry'). Tillich is entirely cognisant of this and defines hubris as the self-elevation of one’s self to the level of God. Those who are in a state of hubris do not recognise their own limits and show excessive pride or arrogance, acting as though they are God. Tillich also recognises concupiscence, which occurs, when working through others, a domination and exploitation of everything possible. There is an unlimited desire for abundance in material possessions, knowledge, power, sex and all other aspects of one’s relation to the world. This, in other words is a ‘lust’ for total control with power, something akin to a ‘control freak’ but at a far greater elevation.

Relda,

Taking Tillich’s approach, I see any symbolism used and errors in the Bible examples of Christians falling short of accurately describing their God. They can’t know a transcendental god. The contrivance is a substitute and a poor approximation of their God, yet for Christians, the best they can do is have a limited understanding and bonded trust in their scripture, even accepting fabrications and lies. A “god made man” in the form a “man made god,” must walk on water, just as Thor must have his hammer and Zeus must live on a mountain top. Gods must break the laws of nature, according to many primitive humans.

Therefore, first century “divine’ mendicants must act like gods in lore, even if they didn’t in fact. Sells would see the transfiguration important, whereas I would see the “show” unnecessary, if Jesus is God. It is unimportant whether humans are correct or incorrect about Zeus literally attended Prometheus’ first BBQ, if Zeus is God anyway. (I think Tillick would agree):

Even if God exists, the catch is, we don’t know if a given fabrication is aligned to God or is just a common garden variety fabrication.

If God exists and temporal manifestions need not be literal, why remain affixed to the Christian? Surelly, the miracles ascribed to the tens of thousands of gods have equal right not be literal, extending Tillich's posit.

Sells,

Do you not yet see my point about standing back and placing Christianity (and related faiths) into context?
Even in a quest for God, it makes sense to start with the precursory question is there a Creator? Which begs, what is Creation?

Analytically, you are starting midway into a long serial process without evaluating earlier steps. Just starting with Jesus, probably by the happenstance, of being raised in Western society, is not logical, or, at best, not systematic.

david f.,

Thanks. You have provided some highly informative posts. Your argument regarding Judaism and Islam not being creedal appears sound. I enjoyed reading and learning from it.

About the truth of God we seem to be getting nowhere.

So why not dwell on the Sermon on the Mount which surprisingly does help to bring out some of the decencies mentioned by some non-believers in a bush-pub.

Like helping a neighbour in trouble, even though you might lose time or money over it.

Strange us ex-soldiers though also spending too much time in the pubs pretty well all offered to help an ex-soldier finish putting his crop in after he had injured himself.

However, the talk in the local pub after the event was about the biggest cockie in the district not offering help.

Problem was, of course, was that while the father had been too old to enlist the sons were too young, so guess it is just the way the cookie crumbles.

Rather strange that such tales fit the Sermon on the Mount rather than ones about becoming wealthy, however