1. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    09 Mar '10 13:24
    Can somebody explain exactly what Tillich means with this phrase? What 'is' this ground of all being?
  2. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    09 Mar '10 13:59
    Originally posted by rwingett
    Can somebody explain exactly what Tillich means with this phrase? What 'is' this ground of all being?
    God.
  3. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    09 Mar '10 14:04
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    God.
    😴
  4. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    West Coast Rioter
    tinyurl.com/y7loem9q
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    09 Mar '10 15:05
    Originally posted by rwingett
    😴
    It's obvious, man!

    GrOunD of all being
  5. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    09 Mar '10 15:063 edits
    "It's obvious, man!

    GrOunD of all being"

    aha!....run!
  6. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    09 Mar '10 18:25
    Alright, perhaps I need to clarify what I'm asking a little more. Any fool can see that 'god' is supposedly the ground of all being, but what does that mean, exactly? How is Tillich's conception of god as the 'ground of all being' different from the traditional, theistic conception of god?
  7. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    09 Mar '10 19:041 edit
    Originally posted by rwingett
    Can somebody explain exactly what Tillich means with this phrase? What 'is' this ground of all being?
    I don’t know how different Tillich thought his notion is (been a long time since I read him), though a priest friend of mine thought that Tillich was far too non-dualistic.


    Tillich’s “pre-trinitarian” formula was God as ground of being, power of being, and “being-itself” (I would say, "manifestation of being"; but I might be reading into him from my own non-dualism). That certainly sounds non-dualist; at least it does not seem to fit the dualist-theist conception of God. Perhaps Tillich was more of a panentheist.


    The conventional theistic conception of God is dualist: God is “wholly other” than the created universe which—rather than being any kind of expression/manifestation of God—was created out of nothing. One of the problems (for me) is that this “nothing” seems generally to be conceived as a “queer kind of something” [G.E. Moore], a “nothingness” that is somehow separate from “somethingness”; and, prior to creation, God would have been the only “somethingness” there was.


    Some thoroughly non-dualist traditions nevertheless use theistic language symbolically; e.g., Kashmiri Shavism, whose Shiva-Shakti-Spanda formulation is pretty close to Tillich’s “pre-trinitarian” formula—except that they are very clear about their non-dualism: “Nothing there is that is not Shiva”.


    Hope that helps; it’s not a clear answer, but maybe lays out the ground (pun intended) a bit…
  8. Illinois
    Joined
    20 Mar '07
    Moves
    6266
    09 Mar '10 21:23
    Originally posted by rwingett
    Alright, perhaps I need to clarify what I'm asking a little more. Any fool can see that 'god' is supposedly the ground of all being, but what does that mean, exactly? How is Tillich's conception of god as the 'ground of all being' different from the traditional, theistic conception of god?
    The traditional, theistic conception of God includes the attribute --- "ground of all being" --- so I don't think Tillich's conception of God differs in that respect.
  9. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    09 Mar '10 22:59
    Originally posted by epiphinehas
    The traditional, theistic conception of God includes the attribute --- "ground of all being" --- so I don't think Tillich's conception of God differs in that respect.
    Is that your opinion or Tillich's? It is my understanding that Tillich's conception of god is quite different from the traditional theistic one.
  10. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    10 Mar '10 00:56
    Originally posted by vistesd
    I don’t know how different Tillich thought his notion is (been a long time since I read him), though a priest friend of mine thought that Tillich was far too non-dualistic.


    Tillich’s “pre-trinitarian” formula was God as ground of being, power of being, and “being-itself” (I would say, "manifestation of being"; but I might be reading into him f ...[text shortened]... Hope that helps; it’s not a clear answer, but maybe lays out the ground (pun intended) a bit…
    The reason I ask is that I'm reading another book by Bishop Spong, Why Christianity Must Change Or Die, and he references Tillich and the 'ground of all being'. That's a nifty phrase and all, but how does one relate to it? You've used phrases like 'ground of being', 'power of being', 'being-itself', and 'manifestation of being', but how does one relate to those? What do they mean to me? How does saying that god is the ground of all being make any practical difference in my life? At what point does it just become an exercise in retaining the 'god' language while dropping all the 'god' content? If it translates into a sort of pantheism, then what's the point, really? If it's a type of panentheism, as you've said, then what exactly is this extra part that distinguishes it from pantheism?
  11. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    10 Mar '10 04:01
    Originally posted by epiphinehas
    The traditional, theistic conception of God includes the attribute --- "ground of all being" --- so I don't think Tillich's conception of God differs in that respect.
    I took Tillich to 'wander' to the point of distinguishing how God cannot be objectified in the sense that (pardon the expression) we are looking down on Him as a subject... among other things.
  12. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    10 Mar '10 04:192 edits
    Originally posted by rwingett
    The reason I ask is that I'm reading another book by Bishop Spong, Why Christianity Must Change Or Die, and he references Tillich and the 'ground of all being'. That's a nifty phrase and all, but how does one relate to it? You've used phrases like 'ground of being', 'power of being', 'being-itself', and 'manifestation of being', but how does one rela , then what exactly is this extra part that distinguishes it from pantheism?
    I’m not really sure myself that the distinction between pantheism and panentheism is that significant. I’m not sure that it isn’t an attempt to get out of pantheism without going to dualistic theism; and if it is, I’m not sure it works. It seems to imply that some aspect of the ground remains unmanifest.


    I prefer the more Buddhist term “non-dualism” to pantheism just because some people seem to use pantheism in a way that implies a universe of distinctly separable parts that just can be added up to make the whole (“the One” ). I take a more “gestaltic” view in which the figures/forms (existents) are manifestations of the whole. The whole (the gestalt) consists of the figures/forms/manifestations and the implicate ground without which we cannot perceive the forms. For me the “ground of all being” just designates that in which and of which we inseparably are. When we die, we just become elements of that in its continual manifestation as the universe—the waterdrop falling again into the ocean is a typical metaphor.


    From my study, folks who use the “G-word” for the ground of being (as opposed to, say, the Tao) seem generally to ascribe some kind of consciousness—or at least intentionality—to the GoB. Or, perhaps some of them have just evolved from older theistic traditions and subsequently redefined the term. In any event, there are some venerable traditions that use theistic language within a strictly non-dualist framework, and I see no need to critique them for it, as long as I understand them.


    Tillich, I suspect, represents a panentheism in which the GoB is intentional and conscious (in some mysterious way perhaps), and in which some aspect of it remains unmanifest—and thus, in his language, “transcendant”. Maybe that’s just a thought that will help as you read about his views. It’s not a view that I hold, so I can’t defend it.

    _________________________________________

    EDIT: I guess you aren't having much luck with "exactly" what Tillich means, as opposed to what I or someone else would mean. It's just been too long since I read Tillich. Sorry.
  13. Standard memberblack beetle
    Black Beastie
    Scheveningen
    Joined
    12 Jun '08
    Moves
    14524
    10 Mar '10 10:40
    Originally posted by vistesd
    I’m not really sure myself that the distinction between pantheism and panentheism is that significant. I’m not sure that it isn’t an attempt to get out of pantheism without going to dualistic theism; and if it is, I’m not sure it works. It seems to imply that some aspect of the ground remains unmanifest.


    I prefer the more Buddhist term “non-dualism” ...[text shortened]... to what I or someone else would mean. It's just been too long since I read Tillich. Sorry.
    We can speak without voice for we are elements of "that" regardless of this bardo of ours😵
  14. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    10 Mar '10 14:22
    Originally posted by black beetle
    We can speak without voice for we are elements of "that" regardless of this bardo of ours😵
    ... and yet we are compelled to say it anyway, eh?
  15. Standard memberblack beetle
    Black Beastie
    Scheveningen
    Joined
    12 Jun '08
    Moves
    14524
    10 Mar '10 14:50
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    ... and yet we are compelled to say it anyway, eh?
    Nope😵
Back to Top