[177] The theologian, if he speaks of religious language^a, speaks of the divine love forgiving the sinner, or of the divine grace giving power-of-being to those who are in despair, etc. Now this is the fundamental difference, but both speak of ultimate^b reality because only that which is the ultimate, the ground of being and meaning, can be the ground of everything that is, and can be our ultimate concern. Now up to this point, everything is neat and, I hope, comparatively clear. But now the difficulty arises which is very simple to state, but very difficult to describe. The difficulty is that the philosopher is a human being and the theologian is a man who has the possibility of thinking. That makes all the difference. THEY BOTH ARE MEN; they both participate in human existence; they both have ultimate concern; and they both ask the question of the structure of being, ^cbecause no human being can completely escape these two realities which belong to human nature. As I said in another place, every human being philosophizes and theologizes, [just] as every human being moralizes and politicizes. These categories are functions of the human mind in which everybody potentially participates, whether he does it actually or not. Now this means: the question is not whether he DEVELOPS the one or the other thing--- the peasant boy doesn’t usually develop philosophy, and not even theology; nevertheless he asks questions which put to shame great philosophers, especially if he has not been distorted by the adults in his immediate encounter with reality. And the philosopher has to die and has to anticipate his having-to-die, and has to ask the question about his being, in face of his having-to-die. No one