I knew Tillich somewhat... used to spend weekends in East Hampton with Paul and Hannah. I would like to explore Paul's brave resistance to the Nazis... That is a subject that is incredibly important, and rarely discussed! Thanks! GS
My childhood churches' ministers were all fans of Tillich, and often his work was the focus of their sermons. It's been a few decades since i real Tillich's work, so it's interesting to resist it, and see how the last 30 years of my life have been influenced by him.
Thank you for uploading the 2nd part. A very nice Christmas present from St. John's! Can I continue to hope that you'll eventually do this for all your great vids? Henry Nelson Wieman said about Tillich that indeed, philosophy is man's ultimate concern but religion is man's ultimate commitment. A compare & contrast vid. on these 2 great "process" theologians would be valuable to many of us. Interesting too that Thomas Merton's trip to the Indian Buddhists had a similar effect of increased religious pluralism throughout Am/Euro Catholicism.
It might be the case that all the religions are trying to express the same truths in different language and different symbols; but why should we exclude the possibility that some language and symbols are better than others in terms of expressing the truth?
that is an interesting thought @bayreuth79, however, I believe that a healthy understanding of general revelation can answer that question. Assuming, of course, you believe in Christ as the pinnacle of language and symbols therein--and by pinnacle, I don't mean that Christ is another set of symbols among other symbols! Christ is pinnacle like the sun is to all sight. It's primary and independent of the object and being it illumines. Christ the ultimate representation of truth is the only metaphysical definitive necessary for all truths. What pantheist experience as truth--with a little 't'--Christians know personally through Christ the ulmate truth--the big 'T'. Colossians 1:15-20 is a great demonstration of who Christ is--in relation to your question, and further can be said on what you mean by "better than others in terms of expressing the truth". Colo 1:15-20 15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. God bless! :)
He is mistaken when he claims that sophisticated theologies (with a picture of Thomas Aquinas in the background) think of God as an object among objects. St. Thomas Aquinas clearly and unequivocally denies that God is a being, an object, a thing, alongside other beings. For St. Thomas God is the reason why there is something instead of nothing. God is ipsum esse subsistens: the subsistent act of being itself. Therefore Aquinas' theology is _not_ open to the kind of criticism that Tillich might want to make.
@@lol-or5sf Tillich is still mistaken (I believe). St Thomas Aquinas' arguments for the existence of God _only_ point towards a mystery which we do not and cannot understand. Thus his natural theology does not imply an objectification of God. Herbert McCabe OP is useful to read in relation to this. Most 20th century protestant theologians tends to confuse later baroque construals of Aquinas' work for Aquinas himself.
Again, the “God is the ground of being”. This mean that God is something that is transcendent to and independent of Being, but is what Being depends on. This Is the very question Plato talks about in his Parmenides where he asks, “can the One be, and not partake of Being?” How can anything Be without Being? Well, in the 1st hypothesis of the Parmenides, there’s the implication that since The One is made of parts, then that implies it doesn’t depend on parts. And if not dependent, then the One is independent, even independent of Being itself. This notion is also spoken of in the republic where the Good is over and above Being. Which means the Good and The One are one and the same “thing”. This transcendence of the One (God aka Jehovah) solves the issue of sameness and difference that arise from substantivism of various sorts.
I respect what Tillich tried to accomplish: provide modern Protestantism with a metaphysics. But if you're going to go that route, then Thomas Aquinas is far more satisfying. And most people are not struggling with estrangement in the existentialist sense. That's a peculiarity of white European intellectuals of the 1910's-40's generation, not least because of the world wars.
How can anyone take this seriously? This is all just metaphysics posing as Christianity. It’s got nothing at all to do with the Gospels or the Old Testament. It’s got nothing to do with popular religion at all.
I knew Tillich somewhat... used to spend weekends in East Hampton with Paul and Hannah. I would like to explore Paul's brave resistance to the Nazis... That is a subject that is incredibly important, and rarely discussed! Thanks! GS
My childhood churches' ministers were all fans of Tillich, and often his work was the focus of their sermons. It's been a few decades since i real Tillich's work, so it's interesting to resist it, and see how the last 30 years of my life have been influenced by him.
Thank you for uploading the 2nd part. A very nice Christmas present from St. John's! Can I continue to hope that you'll eventually do this for all your great vids?
Henry Nelson Wieman said about Tillich that indeed, philosophy is man's ultimate concern but religion is man's ultimate commitment. A compare & contrast vid. on these 2 great "process" theologians would be valuable to many of us.
Interesting too that Thomas Merton's trip to the Indian Buddhists had a similar effect of increased religious pluralism throughout Am/Euro Catholicism.
It might be the case that all the religions are trying to express the same truths in different language and different symbols; but why should we exclude the possibility that some language and symbols are better than others in terms of expressing the truth?
that is an interesting thought @bayreuth79, however, I believe that a healthy understanding of general revelation can answer that question. Assuming, of course, you believe in Christ as the pinnacle of language and symbols therein--and by pinnacle, I don't mean that Christ is another set of symbols among other symbols! Christ is pinnacle like the sun is to all sight. It's primary and independent of the object and being it illumines. Christ the ultimate representation of truth is the only metaphysical definitive necessary for all truths. What pantheist experience as truth--with a little 't'--Christians know personally through Christ the ulmate truth--the big 'T'.
Colossians 1:15-20 is a great demonstration of who Christ is--in relation to your question, and further can be said on what you mean by "better than others in terms of expressing the truth".
Colo 1:15-20
15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
God bless! :)
The side effects of Tribalism perhaps...
@@earlismarks7108 Ah yes, we should shy away from truth because “tribalism is bad.”
He is mistaken when he claims that sophisticated theologies (with a picture of Thomas Aquinas in the background) think of God as an object among objects. St. Thomas Aquinas clearly and unequivocally denies that God is a being, an object, a thing, alongside other beings. For St. Thomas God is the reason why there is something instead of nothing. God is ipsum esse subsistens: the subsistent act of being itself. Therefore Aquinas' theology is _not_ open to the kind of criticism that Tillich might want to make.
@@lol-or5sf Tillich is still mistaken (I believe). St Thomas Aquinas' arguments for the existence of God _only_ point towards a mystery which we do not and cannot understand. Thus his natural theology does not imply an objectification of God. Herbert McCabe OP is useful to read in relation to this. Most 20th century protestant theologians tends to confuse later baroque construals of Aquinas' work for Aquinas himself.
@@lol-or5sf Do read Herbert McCabe OP. He was a great Dominican theologian who died about 20 years ago.
Keith Ward has written a systematic theology in dialogue with the world religions.
Again, the “God is the ground of being”. This mean that God is something that is transcendent to and independent of Being, but is what Being depends on.
This Is the very question Plato talks about in his Parmenides where he asks, “can the One be, and not partake of Being?”
How can anything Be without Being? Well, in the 1st hypothesis of the Parmenides, there’s the implication that since The One is made of parts, then that implies it doesn’t depend on parts. And if not dependent, then the One is independent, even independent of Being itself. This notion is also spoken of in the republic where the Good is over and above Being. Which means the Good and The One are one and the same “thing”.
This transcendence of the One (God aka Jehovah) solves the issue of sameness and difference that arise from substantivism of various sorts.
I respect what Tillich tried to accomplish: provide modern Protestantism with a metaphysics. But if you're going to go that route, then Thomas Aquinas is far more satisfying. And most people are not struggling with estrangement in the existentialist sense. That's a peculiarity of white European intellectuals of the 1910's-40's generation, not least because of the world wars.
I love it when theologians use religious mythologies loosely as metaphor to help wrestle with existence, sans supernatural claims...
Have read Tillich though?
How can anyone take this seriously? This is all just metaphysics posing as Christianity. It’s got nothing at all to do with the Gospels or the Old Testament. It’s got nothing to do with popular religion at all.
A load of hogwash.