Question by more21_vin: How do you explain or understand the onto-theological representation of relationship between God and human?
The failing of the metaphysical tradition to free itself from the calculative and representational foundationalism (onto-theological character)has misconstrued the nature of God and thereby obstructing humans from authentic relationship with the divine. Please enlighten me on how to understand this onto-theological representation of relationship between God and humans? what are the challenges or deeper problems that this ontological relationship pose to our philosophy and theology?
Or can you point/cite any reliable references or sources to tackle this problem?
Best answer:
Answer by tasagi
I do not know what the genuine or perfect relationship with the Divine constitutes. I agree that the “Image” of God carried in the minds of the populus is misconstrued. I suspect this the result of contemporary empiricism. IF we look at the empiricist doctrine it is quite clear that any and all representations are logically conceived, thus defineable. This is their error. Eternity can be concluded with calculus, it is not defineable and neither is being. Thomas Acquinis in “Suma Theologica” worked on this problem and concluded that God can not be rationalized[to the bane of all Empiricists]. I agree with his assumption. Further, I think that Acquinis’ attempt to clearify a relationship between Divine and Material is the best written documentation you will find respecting the treatment of the question.
1. The ontological arguement suggests that God can be rationalized……..the problem is that God can not be defined. The result is easoteric superstition as in Gnosticism. This is easily corrupted to degeneration into apostacy.
2. The “Causi-Sui” arguement states that man is his own creation and thus the world is ordered, predictable and finite. There is no eternity or infinite so there is no God. This works well for communists.
Where an indiviual falls [which camp] respecting the Ontological arguement determines whether either the practice of idealized virtue or the practice of practical self interest guide one’s life. A man will either be good for fear of the hearafter or for fear of civil consequence.
Give your answer to this question below!
Read the Tao.
The story of God was written as an explanation of events not understood. If there was no God, we’d have to invent one because the nature of man is to blame others, rather than take responsibility for what we do. Since we’re less than perfect, we blame God for making us that way. To inspire us to improve, we should aspire to be more Godlike. Your question suggest that you believe people can ask intelligent questions about something they know nothing about, then discuss it endlessly without facts, and finally conclude that they’ve been misled. You might want tosell them the Brooklyn Bridge.