09 Mar '10 13:24>
Can somebody explain exactly what Tillich means with this phrase? What 'is' this ground of all being?
Originally posted by rwingettI 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.
Can somebody explain exactly what Tillich means with this phrase? What 'is' this ground of all being?
Originally posted by rwingettThe 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.
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?
Originally posted by epiphinehasIs that your opinion or Tillich's? It is my understanding that Tillich's conception of god is quite different from the traditional theistic one.
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.
Originally posted by vistesdThe 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?
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…
Originally posted by epiphinehasI 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.
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.
Originally posted by rwingettI’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.
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?
Originally posted by vistesdWe can speak without voice for we are elements of "that" regardless of this bardo of ours😵
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.