|
|
|
|
|
Existence of God (Synthetic Statement Of Philosophical Theology) (2)
|
|
|
Paul Jang
|
2008-03-04 16:13:26, hit : 2,987 |
|
|
God as a Reality and a Symbol
The conception of Tillich's God is regarded as a Reality and a Symbol. If so, at first, what is the Reality which Tillich has talked about? That is as following: His God is Ground of whole being, especially Ground of human being, the reality related to the ultimate concern of human being, and a serious concern about human being.
In other words, what is human being? Where does human being come from, and where do they go? What is the meaning of the existence of mine? It means that reality is the answer to such questions. Man who does not ask the meaning of his existence can not be regarded as a true man. Human life, living without such questions, can not be regarded as a human life in the true sense. This is the so called his existential anthropology.
Religion has the most faithful ultimate concern on the momentous event, namely the meaning of his existence. Accordingly, whichever religion it is, the religion has the same meaning in the case of having the answer to the question of this ultimate concern. It is the primary task that religion points out, the Reality of all reality. Therefore whichever religion has this ultimate concern.
Even though Buddhism has no the word "God," it is the same in all the religions because it has the ultimate concern of human being. By the way, problem is the ultimate concern of the religions that it is just identified with God of Christianity.
If the meaning of human existence is an ultimate concern, how can it be understood? This is problem. On this, Tillich says that an experience of holiness can make us understand God, the Ultimate Concern. The experience of this holiness must be commonly latent in every man. Every one lives having experienced the holiness.
Every man must have an object which he does desire to entrust across the ages and countries of the world. Only this experience of holiness can make us grasp the meaning of God. It is the very Ultimate Concern.
We can not live meaningful life without the Ultimate Concern of human being. Man must recognize a holy object. Accordingly, the Ultimate Concern must be expressed as the Holy to man.
The World history of religion shows this fact just as it is. The "Ultimate Concern" would be expressed as the plant, animal, celestial body, man, and even immaterial world according to the country, nation, and customs. But all the ultimate realities are the same together. They are nothing more than the various forms of a holy experience.
In other words, in case of some religion, the holy experience may be expressed as patriotism, and man becomes the object of holiness. After all, nature or success in life, son, lover, husband, wife, and parents may become the Ultimate Concern. In this case, such an object is the holy object, the very God.
Tillich says when nature, honor, money, rank, parents, wife, children, and learning are of the greatest value to him according to one, they may become his God. For him God is no more than an object or content of the Ultimate Concern. Although the word God was not used, it may become God when the object of a looking into, desire, and yearning are the matter of concern.
Therefore, even though Buddhism has not used the word God, the Nirvana, the ultimate concern of it is the very God. In this sense Buddhism, Christianity, and all other religions must have their God.
What is more, even the atheists, as well as the men who have no interest in God, do have their implicitly God because the ultimate concern to holiness must be latent in their mind.
For example, in case of the Nazi Party of Deutschland their God was Hitler, so called, their prophet or their fatherland. In this way, communists have made Karl Marx and their communism be their God.
All the people must have their God likewise. Accordingly, whoever must have their God, so called an Ultimate Concern, at any place at any ages.
In this sense, Paul Tillich has expressed and explained God as an Ultimate Concern, and systemized his theology. But how can we agree this concept of God to our Christian concept?
Because his God is no more than a symbolic God and polytheistic as well as pantheistic One, it can not be accepted into Christian doctrine, though he has used the word God. His conception of God is very different from Christian conception of God. His conception of God is non-Biblical, non-Faithful, and non-Christian.
.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Introduction
Theology 