God does not exist: the atheism of Paul Tillich

stumpjumper said:

It's possible.

It's also possible that what we call God is just projection of existence and reality, personified, in it's totality experienced by each of us as a singularity in different ways...

Sorry to be so cynical but that's the way I'm looking at things lately

Click to expand...

If that "projection of existence and reality" didn't project his Son into reality in the person of Jesus, and that Son didn't die on the cross and wasn't raised again on the third day, than being a Christ-follower is entirely false and useless. Or so Paul says (I Corinthians 15), and I find his logic compelling.

stumpjumper said:

It's possible.

It's also possible that what we call God is just projection of existence and reality, personified, in it's totality experienced by each of us as a singularity in different ways...

Sorry to be so cynical but that's the way I'm looking at things lately

Click to expand...

no reason to be sorry.

what if that is only way a finite being can experience a infinite beiing? meaning, that's the only way we can truly experience God.

what would we really lose with that if that was the case?

stumpjumper said:

If we stop looking at God a being or entity, what does that do for our relationship with the concept of God?

Click to expand...

Was Tillich a panentheist?

While pantheism means all things are identical to God, panentheism means God is in all things, neither identical to, nor totally separate from all things. Such a concept, some may argue, is more compatible with God as personal while not barring a bridge between God and creation. Historical figures such as Paul Tillich have argued for such a concept within Christian theology, as has contemporary biblical scholar Marcus Borg and theologian Matthew Fox, an Episcopal priest. Creation Spirituality.
Monism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

Yoder777 said:

Was Tillich a panentheist?

Click to expand...

I look at it as Tillich questioning the definition of 'exist' and applying that to theory of god more than anything.

Dynamics of Faith by Paul Tillich is one of the best explanations for the meaning and purpose of faith that I've ever read.

I Am That I Am....
what ever you need, that I will become / already am...
a relationship with an eternal being of unfathomable power....
that he is and listens to me, is enough, we have an eternity to understand how, why, where, when, and to what extent

isn't that what 1 Corinthians 2.9 eye has not seen, nor ear heard...has said already, for 2000 years?
or deuteronomy 29.29 true, but uncomprehendable

Wow, this is an old thread ! However, as i have recently been reading St Tomas Aquinas, I think i am some what adept to answer the question "stumpjumper" Posted, regarding; "What is being".

The word "being" unfortunately has only one meaning in English, the meaning in English is poor and needs further investigation.The gist of what we mean to say in English by "being", is to recognise that some "thing" that we are talking about Exists. That is to say, that "thing", lets call it "Sebastian", is in the act of "being". (Existing) - for we see he is alive.

The official definition in English is thus, being = existence. we call this concept "ens".

Thats all we get from the English folks! Never the less, this term "ens" which is Latin gives us one part of the puzzle to "what is being". "Ens" then, is a (designation) word to a "things" existence, by the fact it is currently existing.

Now, Sebastian at some point came into being, (acknowledging there was a very "act" of his being as well as the fact he "is existing"). This act of is called "esse"

Thus, we have "ens" (in the state of existing) and "esse", (the very creation of that "things" existence) .

So just to clarify, An apple, for example is in a state of being (Ens), and thus we recognise that at some point, it had an act of existence, (Esse). why ? because If the apple never had an act of being, (Esse) it simply would not exist, thus it would have no (ens).

I just read Tillich's Biblical Religion and the Search for Ultimate Reality. In it he tries to reconcile the ontological approach in which God is the ground of all being, with the kind of personal encounter shown in the Bible, and prayer. It's clear that he doesn't intend to be an atheist. He believes one has personal experience of God, that there is sin and grace, and faith.

But it's very hard to define these things when the other end of the relationship is so different from human persons. God isn't an object in the universe alongside other objects. But that places him outside what our language can talk about. He's really trying to do justice to Biblical concepts within this context. But it's not clear how successful he is.

stumpjumper said:

When I read The Courage To Be, he alluded to this idea of God not existing as a being:
"God does not exist. He is being itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him."

Click to expand...

Does this sound like the beliefs of Jesus? Nope.
So which source would I trust?

SkyWriting said:

Does this sound like the beliefs of Jesus? Nope.
So which source would I trust?

Click to expand...

You misunderstand, perhaps deliberately.

SkyWriting said:

Does this sound like the beliefs of Jesus? Nope.
So which source would I trust?

Click to expand...

Jesus doesn't give us a philosophical definition of God. He speaks about God's actions, and speaks of him as Father, which is basically speaking of personal relationship with him. Tillich agrees that both of these kinds of things need to be said. But it's clear that speaking of God as our Father is metaphorical. Indeed any language about God is non-literal.

Tillich claims that Scripture resists making God into an entity among all the other entities in the universe. Rather, God is the creator and sustainer of all of reality. I think he's right. However despite not being a person, strictly speaking, he relates to us on a personal basis, and is encountered in history as a person, particularly in the person of Christ.

If God isn't an entity within the universe, then saying that he exists has a different structure than saying my desk exists. Tillich does say that God is. But he points out the difficulties with this statement:

"Of course not everyone asks what this word “is” in relation to God means. Most people, including the biblical writers, take the word in its popular sense: something “is” if it can be found in the whole of potential experience. That which can be encountered within the whole of reality is real. Even the more sophisticated discussions about the existence or nonexistence of God often have this popular tinge. But, if God can be found within the whole of reality, then the whole of reality is the basic and dominant concept. God, then, is subject to the structure of reality. ... The God who is a being is transcended by the God who is Being itself, the ground and abyss of every being."

hedrick said:

But it's clear that speaking of God as our Father is metaphorical. Indeed any language about God is non-literal.

Click to expand...

Jesus doesn't give us a philosophical definition of God.

Click to expand...

If he did, that would be the non-literal one.

He speaks about God's actions, and speaks of him as Father, which is basically speaking of personal relationship with him.

Click to expand...

Wait....What?
But not literal actions and not a literal personal relationship?

18 I am One who testifies about Myself, and the Father
who sent Me also testifies about Me.”
19 “Where is Your Father?” they asked Him.“You do not
know Me or My Father, Jesus answered. “If you knew Me,
you would know My Father as well.”

John 8:55
You do not know Him, but I know Him. If I said I did
not know Him, I would be a liar like you. But I do
know Him, and I keep His word.

John 14:7
If you had known Me, you would know My Father as well.
From now on you do know Him and have seen Him."

John 14:9
Jesus replied, "Philip, I have been with you all this time,
and still you do not know Me?
Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father.
How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?

John 15:21
But they will treat you like this on account of My name,
because they do not know the One who sent Me.

John 16:3
They will do these things because they have not
known the Father or Me.

1 John 2:23
No one who denies the Son can have the Father;
whoever confesses the Son has the Father as well.

King James Bible
Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Tillich died in 65

as far as I know, God still lives

I wish I had read all these books, but I haven't...

I like to read stuff here, where other liberal Christians post things

It was once alleged by a fellow student, that I was a "Neo-Orthodox"

i think the guy liked Carl Barth

Bunny said she was "Neo-Middle" later in class
which I'm sure that she meant as a joke
but maybe not

My impression of Tillich was that he was really into German idealism and metaphysics with a small side of Christian symbolism. All the miracles in the Bible are basically mumbo jumbo and the important thing is to make "Christianity" palatable to intellectual elites.

I don't think its surprising that liberalism emerged among the state churches of Europe, whereas other modern and postmodern theological traditions have been critical of Constantinianism and the notion that the Church should be a respectable institution commanding authority in society.

The verb to 'be' is at the root of most human languages. We have a great deal of trouble getting behind the concept of being. When Tillich suggests that 'God does not exist' I believe he is highlighting the idea that before being there is God, and indeed after being there is God. God transcends being. Being is not a attribute of God, because being comes into being at the behest of God.

So to argue that God exists, is a failure of our acknowledgement of God, or perhaps more precisely a failure of our recognition of the limitations of the language within which we express our understanding.

Having wrestled with what he is saying I suspect this was some of the best of Tillich. At the opening of Systematic Theology Tillich argues for the primacy of ontology over teleology - and in that construct I believe Tillich argues for the primacy of the divine over ontology and teleology.

FireDragon76 said:

My impression of Tillich was that he was really into German idealism and metaphysics with a small side of Christian symbolism. All the miracles in the Bible are basically mumbo jumbo and the important thing is to make "Christianity" palatable to intellectual elites.

I don't think its surprising that liberalism emerged among the state churches of Europe, whereas other modern and postmodern theological traditions have been critical of Constantinianism and the notion that the Church should be a respectable institution commanding authority in society.

Click to expand...

Maybe. Critical thought, both with respect to Scripture and Kant's critique of metaphysics, removed much of the traditional basis for Christianity. In my opinion during the 19th Cent there were several types of response:
* Deism, which removed most of the positive content of religion
* Approaches based on personal significance, including both pietism and Christian existentialism.
* An attempt to refound Christianity directly on Jesus' teachings.

All of these approaches occurred in areas with State churches. They were less influential here, in my view, because the changes to which they responded largely hadn't happened here. Perhaps that was due to the lack of the State church. European State churches were typically run by well educated people. While the US had plenty of fine seminaries, US churches are much more popular entities than was the case during this period in Europe. The Enlightenment simply hadn't had the effect here that it had in Europe.

It still hasn't. A large fraction of our population still rejects the results of science and scholarship, and even those that accept it on most matters may not do so in the area of religion.

My impression is that even in Europe, the balance between the three approaches has shifted in favor of the third during the 20th Cent. Since the Enlightenment only started influencing US religion during the 20th Cent, that has tended to bias our view. In my view Tillich represented the earlier period. I think he really did try to connect his thought with Jesus' revelation, but still on an overall basis it tends to look subjective.