On the Meaning of God-Talk in Religious Language
By Glenn Plastina
The problem of God is never a problem to God. Primarily, it is because man is the only one concern for the problem of the concept of God. Even the very word “God” has been linguistically disputed with a long history. Perhaps, an old question was succinct about this concern: What’s in a mane?
Etymologically, the term “God” has an ancient history. Platonic contribution may have spilled a lot of understanding and implications of it. As times goes by, the word became more complicated and ultimately became a subject of philosophical dispute. Religiously, the term have various similarities and differences from different, major, and cultural perspectives. Though by intuition, it is a popular claim that man has that innate nature to have inclinations geared towards God; of which various explanations ranges from psychology, sociology, philosophy offer alternative answers. No doubt, even the concept of God by itself is subject to complex scrutiny. No wonder, others were struggling with the concept of God. What if the term “God” be replaced with other term? Is its representation and meaning changed? Is altering the term God means abolishing the meaning of God-talk? Is decisive God-talk intelligible apart from “God”? Is there meaning in the word “God”?
There have been attempts to change the term God, yet the problem remains intact. Man can never do away with the problem of religious language. No matter how many arguments were given to justify personal and prolific reasoning, he has to face the fact that in dealing with concepts, language is inevitably useful and controversial. Even if it can not represent the whole of what it wanted to represent, with the meager linguistic tool he has in hands, he is compelled to accept that the word “God” is a religious language. And since it is a religious term, the meaning of it can never be manipulated for the recipient’s concept may differ from one to another. If there is one responsible in understanding the meaning of God, man is.
God is not obliged to understand himself even if man fell short in understanding Him. Personally, God is not mistaken to utilize man’s finite words to reveal himself through human language and ultimately in human form through Jesus of Nazareth. Limitation of religious language is never the ultimate predicament in understanding the meaning of God. Whatever is that ultimate hindrance, the quest for the meaning of God-talk goes on and on.
The problem of God is never a problem to God. Primarily, it is because man is the only one concern for the problem of the concept of God. Even the very word “God” has been linguistically disputed with a long history. Perhaps, an old question was succinct about this concern: What’s in a mane?
Etymologically, the term “God” has an ancient history. Platonic contribution may have spilled a lot of understanding and implications of it. As times goes by, the word became more complicated and ultimately became a subject of philosophical dispute. Religiously, the term have various similarities and differences from different, major, and cultural perspectives. Though by intuition, it is a popular claim that man has that innate nature to have inclinations geared towards God; of which various explanations ranges from psychology, sociology, philosophy offer alternative answers. No doubt, even the concept of God by itself is subject to complex scrutiny. No wonder, others were struggling with the concept of God. What if the term “God” be replaced with other term? Is its representation and meaning changed? Is altering the term God means abolishing the meaning of God-talk? Is decisive God-talk intelligible apart from “God”? Is there meaning in the word “God”?
There have been attempts to change the term God, yet the problem remains intact. Man can never do away with the problem of religious language. No matter how many arguments were given to justify personal and prolific reasoning, he has to face the fact that in dealing with concepts, language is inevitably useful and controversial. Even if it can not represent the whole of what it wanted to represent, with the meager linguistic tool he has in hands, he is compelled to accept that the word “God” is a religious language. And since it is a religious term, the meaning of it can never be manipulated for the recipient’s concept may differ from one to another. If there is one responsible in understanding the meaning of God, man is.
God is not obliged to understand himself even if man fell short in understanding Him. Personally, God is not mistaken to utilize man’s finite words to reveal himself through human language and ultimately in human form through Jesus of Nazareth. Limitation of religious language is never the ultimate predicament in understanding the meaning of God. Whatever is that ultimate hindrance, the quest for the meaning of God-talk goes on and on.
posted by GlenPlas @ 12:10 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home