“

Advances which sprang from the wreckage of traditional views. It is good to start this introduction by using the concept on the article “Images of God.” This is because it will help the researcher to understand what God or who God is. Instead of going immediately to the different field of looking God, understanding God, and the way on how to approach God in his contemporary time, the question now here is that, what language can be used in dealing with the nature the God? Does the traditional way of understanding God is still appropriate in today’s contemporary time? In this article “the images of God” deals to the popular culture on how they look God and go beyond to the different point of view of looking the existence of God.

When man will go beyond to the reality of his existence in dealing with God’s cultures probably there were a lot influenced to those who belong to their teachings, especially in looking God in different perspectives. However, I think the concept that I have seen in the article “Images of God” Precisely the idea that the post modern way of presenting. Do we still see God as something transcendental, or we need to look God the same like us human or just to understand God for what language of today’s contemporary world is using. What the Researcher have had seen here, understanding God is not only to limit our self to the traditional way of Presenting God as something transcendence, but the question is do the language that was in the Metaphysics will lead the contemporary people to understand God? Especially in our present time, this is to say that man need to transcend by using post modern language. Furthermore, the new war of looking at God then will lead us to the awareness of the massive influences of modernity in every culture and to the individual. This is then, what the post modern want to imposed, that man need to understand God by in his present time. And this is the invitation by the post Modern though man has a new way of understanding God and looking at God it might in a different we need not to set aside our traditional way of understanding God. Because, it will help man to become more critical in knowing the very nature or essence of God in his present time; but the important here is though we see God in different perspective; we still believed into something that his existence is real and we may call him divine or God that man needed to stand onto it

Starting with the epistemic inquiry into the nature of faith we have been led to broaden our treatment into the attitude if the believers, man’s attentiveness to his experience points out to him his finitude as well as the transcendence of Being that sustain him. Prototypical gestures that mark him as man demand a religious interpretation of reality for this vindication and validity. Finally the choice that faces man when confronted with the possibilities, but between hope and despair, meaning and meaninglessness, purpose and purposelessness, Being and non being. Looking at the reality of a religious man is rational and intelligent; religion is man’s response to the fundamental questions that man have always asked themselves, questions without it would be difficult to conceive being human. The existence of God can be found on the man itself who belong to his own religion, as we all know that region it is true is man’s choice, but there is reason. To recognized in it man’s response to the hidden God who calls to him from the silent harmony of the spheres, all that man have done present to future, was tracing the itinerary of each soul that has really known God. Man have merely sketched in a more thematic and systematic manner the journal of the religious heart. It is nothing more than a prosaic rendition of the ancient prayer of the Upanishads which is nice also to quote. Lead me from unreal to the real; lead me from darkness to light lead me from death to immortality. (Upanishad)

In the philosophy of God, man need to become more critical in proving the existence of God, man must not only depend on the prejudices that he has in his culture, man must go out to the idea of the others in order for him to have a greater understanding on God, that it means that man must always interpret his reality as a man. And reasoning out his being in existence, because the existence of God depending on the man itself. He is the answer for everything. The affirmation of God then is made through the acceptance on a man itself. Therefore the existence of God can only be proved on the individual interpretation where faith can be found.

How can one Communicate with God? It is not through ordinary speech, because in the realm of divine economy it can be a handicap. The advantage of the human being over the animal is the ability to speak, but, in relation to God, wanting to speak can become the corruption of the human being, who is able to speak, what the human being knows is idle chatter, therefore they can hardly converse. Hence, how? It is by becoming silent like the lily and the bird, the masters of silence. Speech, then, is the human being’s advantage over the other creatures, it’s true, but only if he learns how to become silent.

This question was an attempt at establishing a coherent presentation of the philosophy of God, what is the way for man to understand the totality of God? This venture has taken us through the peculiarities and emphases of the different theorist but has also allowed us to see that the religion is not an impenetrable mystery, esoteric as its manifestation, maybe, but an intelligible act of man. God then is beyond the human capacity to think and reasoning out.

God is present to the believers, almost immediately; the ambiguity of concept of presence hinders further discussion. The concept of “mediated awareness” however has proven to be helpful. The believer does not infer; he experiences the presence of God by interpreting his natural and human environments religiously. Epistemologically, therefore, it is interpretation that accounts for faith as for the physical objects and recognition of ethical obligations. It is interpretation; moreover, without, which man cannot live as man lives, he structures his world and his relations with others and with the world. The ordering that characterizes the cosmos of human existence is human ordering. The interpretative acts of man then are cosmos-constituting acts.

Interpretation is not compelling. It is voluntary faith is characterized therefore by “interpretative voluntariness” that is the feature of interpretative acts of man on all levels. This approach marks a departure from the traditionally distinctive between faith and reason s however maintained. We even go step further: in this commitment we recognized a supreme act of subjectivity which is not irrational but the rationality of theism is consequent to an attitude of openness that allows the question of the origin and explanation of the world itself to be raised. It is rationality, in other words, that comes with the act of faith. To trust reality, to confide in it; to affirm it is to hope, hoping, however, is meaningful and authentic only as an appeal and address to be a creative proves. An absolute thou, by whose love the world is sustained and relationship between man can be sacred. If man then, started to think, and asked concerning good and evil, there the question of God arises, therefore, God is always beyond the individual concerning on his existence, God is always beyond reason, God, then is present to the one who is reasoning out, his experience towards on what is happening in the reality of his existence.

A creditable and voluminous treatise, with examining the possibility, of a contemporary theistic attitude, in other words, it proposes the affirmation of God with the context of total human experience. It is not the logical demonstration of the existence of a metaphysical principle demanded for the coherence of a metaphysical position; neither is it an abandoning of rationality by a flight into wordless mystics. It moves from lived experience of human contingency and need towards the affirmation of God who alone can truly be the answer not only to the questions man has, but to the basic question that he is. If God existed, there would be for man the possibility of a liberating transcendence, one that does not begin and end with the world itself but in its otherness truly liberates. The existence of God would then also render the eternal longing of man significant, not longing for nothing. Man’s being is itself the pure desire to know. If God would exist, there would be a radical solution to the mystery of reality. If God would exist, then, the chance evolution of the human species out of a million matters would be understandable.

Because reality is problematic, the negation of God is possible. The evil in this world will always provide good arguments against the facile acceptance of the existence of God. Man tried to show many examination of the nature of “proofs” for the existence of God that the atheist’s position is irrefutable. Man does not concede that validity of the question to which Got is offered as the answer. However, it must also be said that atheism cannot be rationally demonstrated and that there is therefore no logical necessity for an atheistic position.

The most important here is that an inverse relation between the degree in which a truth is personal and its security. This is not meant that personal and truths are not certain, but one will have to be prepared for certitude different from the exactness by a manipulation of mathematical formulae (to be rational enough). The more impersonal, the more personal the question is the more openness and commitment (which presuppose freedom) are called for certitude in this case arises not put of calculation but of commitment. Man then needed to become rational enough in every experience that he has in life., not like the atheist the ultimate questions of life must remain answered, but rather man must question himself what can he know? What can he do? What can he hope for? So must so that mans confidence in reality is ultimately justified and founded. The option for the affirmation of God is an option for the foundation of reality instead of the finality of contingency, an option for final purpose and meaning rather then, absurdity, an option for ultimate value rather than futility.

It is also in the light of these final considerations that we see that man is the original fact or religion. Out of the desire to understand him and the world, the desire to find the condition for the problematic reality, the question of God arises, and from this, religion, according to Rahner Karl, can therefore say that God has a future; this means for man shall have left aside all discourse about God then also shall cease all questioning that has characterized him as man; whence, why, whither? Then too shall man cease to be man, as in fundamental trust, however, faith has interiors rationality, rationality that manifest itself only when man opens himself to God and accepts him as the answer to his  most fundamental questions, when one accept God as the answer and grasp the concrete life of the believers. The hidden God reveals himself to the heart of the believers that has been opened to him. Indeed there will be an epiphany only for then who are humble enough to deny themselves, their projections and their world and finality. For them who, with the humility of shepherd, hearken to the rumor of the angels the contradiction and ambiguities of the world, God touches the hearts of men.

Introduction

“THE RISE OF urban civilization and the collapse of traditional religion are two main hallmarks of our era and are closely related movements. Urbanization constitutes a massive change in the way men live together; and become possible in its contemporary form only with the scientific and technological

Advances which sprang from the wreckage of traditional views. It is good to start this introduction by using the concept on the article “Images of God.” This is because it will help the researcher to understand what God or who God is. Instead of going immediately to the different field of looking God, understanding God, and the way on how to approach God in his contemporary time, the question now here is that what language can be used in dealing with the nature the God? Does the traditional way of understanding God is still appropriate in today’s contemporary time? In this article “the images of God” is deals to the popular culture on how they look God and go beyond to the different point of view of looking the existence of God.

When man will go beyond to the reality of his existence in dealing with God’s cultures has a lot influenced to those who belong to their teachings, especially in looking God in different perspectives. However, I think the concept that I have seen in the article “Images of God” Precisely the idea that the post modern way of presenting. Do we still see God as something transcendental, or we need to look God the same like us human or just to understand God for what language of today’s contemporary world is using. What the Researcher have had seen here, understanding God is not only to limit our self to the traditional way of Presenting God as something transcendence, but the question is do the language that was in the Metaphysics will lead the contemporary people to understand God? Especially in our present time, this is to say that man need to transcend by using post modern language. Furthermore, the new war of looking at God then will lead us to the awareness of the massive influences of modernity in every culture and to the individual. This is then, what the post modern want to imposed, that man need to understand God by in his present time. And this is the invitation by the post Modern though man has a new way of understanding God and looking at God it might in a different we need not to set aside our traditional way of understanding God. Because, it will help man to become more critical in knowing the very nature or essence of God in his present time; but the important here is though we see God in different perspective; we still believed into something that his existence is real and we may call him divine or God that man needed to stand onto it.