I enjoyed that. I particularly liked: "Therefore, to argue that God exists is to deny him." That's the kind of paradoxical language that drives these new atheists up the wall. Is it gobbledygook? In a way it is. But it's gobbledygook at a higher, more suggestive level than the common-or-garden variety of gibberish*. I've never read Tillich but probably shall one day. And the "patheos" site looks like it contains some stimulating articles. Thanks for the link.
*gibberish = from the name of an 8th-century Islamic alchemist, Jābir ibn Hayyān, whose name was Latinized as "Geber." ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <yifuxero@...> wrote : This mainstream Christian blogger takes a swipe at Paul Tillich's "Ground of Being", saying that it (Being-IIn-Itself" can't be BOTH Immanent AND Transcendent. Actually, It can if we are to believe MMY and to the extent of our own experiences with TM. The fact that it doesn't "seem" possible doesn't make it impossible. Of course, Shankara would have a lot to say on the subject of Advaitic Monism. When the blogger says we can have both Immanence and Transcendence at the same time, he simply has revealed a genuine Paradox (of which there are many in logic). http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camelswithhammers/2011/12/the-impossible-god-of-paul-tillich/ http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camelswithhammers/2011/12/the-impossible-god-of-paul-tillich/
