Tillich and deep strictires

Discuss arguments for existence of God and faith in general. Any aspect of any orientation toward religion/spirituality, as long as it is based upon a positive open to other people attitude.

Moderator: Metacrock

Post Reply
User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 10046
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Tillich and deep strictires

Post by Metacrock » Wed Jan 30, 2019 3:24 am

https://metacrock.blogspot.com/2019/01/ ... ures.html

That being has depth is a clue to the meaning of “the ground of being,” or “being itself.” The depth of being is also related to the notion of the “power of being.” These are all saying the same thing or very closely related things. To really understand what Tillich is saying we have to understand what the depth of being is and relate that to the power of being. The context of the phrase “depth of being” and the quotation above about that comes form Tillich’s sermon, converted into a small book, The Shaking of the Foundations (op cit). In the chapter entitled “the depth of existence,” Tillich tells us that he is using the term “depth” as a metaphor to indicate an attitude taken form spiritual experience. Depth symbolizes both special relation and spiritual quality. Deep implies a profundity (the opposite being “shallow”) and there is also a sense in which “deep” is used for suffering (the depths of despair for example).
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

Jim B.
Posts: 1445
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:36 am

Re: Tillich and deep strictires

Post by Jim B. » Sat Feb 02, 2019 4:01 pm

I tend to think of God as transcending being. If it is a distinction that we can conceive of, namely, being/not being, then I would think that God is probably beyond it somehow, even if we cannot think it without the copula "is."

As far as Tillich goes, I have trouble seeing how God can ground something and be identical to that thing at the same time. If A grounds B, wouldn't A be more fundamental in some way, than B, or more universal?

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 10046
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: Tillich and deep strictires

Post by Metacrock » Mon Feb 04, 2019 1:54 am

Jim B. wrote:
Sat Feb 02, 2019 4:01 pm
I tend to think of God as transcending being. If it is a distinction that we can conceive of, namely, being/not being, then I would think that God is probably beyond it somehow, even if we cannot think it without the copula "is."

As far as Tillich goes, I have trouble seeing how God can ground something and be identical to that thing at the same time. If A grounds B, wouldn't A be more fundamental in some way, than B, or more universal?
I really don't get that. Go is being itself so he cannot be beyond it
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

Jim B.
Posts: 1445
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:36 am

Re: Tillich and deep strictires

Post by Jim B. » Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:23 pm

But there are also things like possibility, potentiality, becoming, negation. YOu could argue that in God all potential is already realized, but then you'd have to come up with a way of explaining a world of becoming, change and imperfection vis a vis God.What would God's relation to this world be like? But if you accept the idea that in at least some aspect(s) of God's nature we see these properties of the world reflected, then maybe in these aspects of the divine nature, being is transcended.

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 10046
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: Tillich and deep strictires

Post by Metacrock » Mon Feb 11, 2019 10:15 am

Jim B. wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:23 pm
But there are also things like possibility, potentiality, becoming, negation. YOu could argue that in God all potential is already realized, but then you'd have to come up with a way of explaining a world of becoming, change and imperfection vis a vis God.What would God's relation to this world be like? But if you accept the idea that in at least some aspect(s) of God's nature we see these properties of the world reflected, then maybe in these aspects of the divine nature, being is transcended.
It still makes o sense to me to say God beyond being. That is to say God beyond reality. So then God is unreality? We can say God beyond some form of reality, our from that still does not preclude being.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

Post Reply