http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
張玉潤 진주여자전문대학 1983 論文集 Vol.5 No.-
WHAT IS MAN? This question is difficult to answer with certainty. We cannot deny that man, as long as his life continues, lives with hardship. Man's life of suffering is certainly his life continues, lives with hardship. Man's life of suffering is certainly his existential situation. Man's great progress in science, philosophy and religious effort has been largely for the purpose of deliverance from the physical and spiritual suffering which he faces. In attempting to solve the problem of human suffering, science has asked "what is suffering's immediate cause?" and from there has sought the solution. Religin(on the other hand) has asked "what is the ultimate principle of human suffering?" and has sought the meaning of suffering there. The purpose of this dissertation is, by a comparison of the Buddhist, Hebraic, and Christian interpretation interpretations of human suffering, to arrive at the most lesirable understanding or interpretation of the problem
張玉潤 진주여자전문대학 1981 論文集 Vol.3 No.-
Man existswith the u l h a t e concern that is the question, "Where I was come and go", and "What is purpose of my life". It is the formula of existence of genuine person. According to Tillich, religion is, no other than, "the ultimate concern," and "God is the subject of ultimate concern". So, religion is the best import problem in all the life of a man. But, today, we can see the religious phenomenon, become grow distant from the intellectual men of modern. The important among the reason is that mo dern men comprehend religious language as cognitive. Religious language is not the language of realistic story, but is the mythological story and symbolistic language. Therefore, we should comprehend religious language as noncognitive. This study, for the sake of triangular position of such theory, mainly, dealt with Randall's theory of the four function of religious language, and Tillich's theory of symbolical language and religious symbols. This is the conclusion of this study: We can not understand religious language as cognitive, historical and scientific comprehension, but we can understand as noncognitive.