[171] going on certainly in the same way in the Indian culture and in the Arabian and Islamic cultures. Now this means that here is another existentially human problem, the problem nobody can escape, and therefore a problem everybody wants to escape, because the problems which we CANNOT escape are at the same time those problems which are so hard that we would LIKE to escape them. One of the ways to escape them is that one shares in the opinion which is very popular, that philosophy^a and faith^b, philosophy and religion^c, are enemies and destroy each other. The trouble is that such a popular escape---which we don’t mind because the popular mind is not predisposed to find a solution to such problems: they have to find the solution to OTHER problems, in which these problems are IMplicit, but not EXplicit---but if theologians do the SAME thing and do it AFTER they have used (in stating such a thing) philosophical concepts, then a kind of passionate anger can arise, not because they don’t see the problem, but because they don’t see their self-contradiction. And they SHOULD see their self-contradiction. They SHOULD---that's their duty, and therefore anger is in place here, not because of another opinion but because of an irresponsible self-contradiction in continuously using concepts which are produced by philosophy in order to reject philosophy in the theological endeavor. That is something which I would call irresponsible. Now if someone comes to me and says, "l don’t see that l use philosophical concepts^d, l use only biblical^e concepts,^f" then he might be excused insofar as he doesn't know very much about the Bible---and ignorance always can be excused---but if he reads the Bible with KNOWLEDGE, then he will find that even the Pauline^g letters are full of Stoic ethics, f^hull of Neoplatonicⁱ concepts, and