Re: MD God relieves from suffering?

From: Wim Nusselder (
Date: Mon Apr 14 2003 - 21:52:49 BST

  • Next message: Wim Nusselder: "Re: MD God relieves from suffering?"

    Dear David B.,

    You wrote 13 Apr 2003 18:26:10 -0600:
    'Based on what you posted, Kuitert looks like my favorite kind of
    theologian. ... It looks a lot like mythology to me ... He's in a little
    danger of trading a anthropomorphic god image for an abstract god image, but
    mostly I think he's right on.'

    Except for his identification of 'god' with '(the power of) the word' (which
    he does elsewhere in his article in a part which I didn't translate; you've
    got to take my word for it (-:) and except for my general dislike of
    theology, I also think Kuitert is quite right.
    That his writings look a lot like mythology to you, may say more about you
    than about Kuitert's writings: if you look for archetypes or gods or
    spirits, you can see them anywhere. They also abound in the writings on this
    list, I guess. Mythology DOES provide powerful metaphores to interpret and
    understand experience.
    The same experience can also be interpreted and understood with higher
    quality intellectual patterns of value however. (Please translate this as
    just 'intellectual patterns of value' if you don't want to enter again into
    the discussion whether mythology belongs to the social or the intellectual
    level with me.) Kuitert's writings also reflect very rational
    considerations, the opposite of what I would call 'mythology'.
    On top of that his writings point at (what he calls) 'transcendence' beyond
    myth and intellect and at (what we call) DQ.
    I don't see how Kuitert is in danger of trading a anthropormorphic god image
    for an abstract god image. He explicitly puts all images of god into
    perspective as man-made creations, including theological abstract ones. He
    locates the divine not in any image, but in the imaging capability of man.
    In the words of another part of his article:
    'Is nothing holy anymore? Understandable question, when another religious
    image is overtaken by time. My answer is formulated in the title of my last
    book: man is holy, because he is FOR A TIME A PLACE OF GOD. Indeed, I slide
    men and god into one another, but without making god into an ingredient of
    man. Is that possible? Yes, only in ONE way without making accidents. Read
    "spirit" for "god". Man is for a while a governor of spirit, because he
    commands the word, and the power of the word is spirit.'

    With friendly greetings,


    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 14 2003 - 22:12:54 BST