[July 1999 journal entry]
Proposition: All ‘God’ language is anthropo-, socio-, cosmomorphic (a Berdyaev-type analysis). Is there an idea or comment about ‘God’ that is not? that escapes these limits? But would not such an idea or comment then be incomprehensible to a human being? If there is no such idea or comment that is comprehensible, then two conclusions follow. (1) All comments and claimed experience regarding “knowing God” or “having a personal relationship with Jesus” or . . . are anthropo-, socio-, cosmomorphic statements. Is disregard for this limitation on ‘God’ language another form of ‘religious’ idolatry? (2) An alternative is to be iconoclastic toward all such language, a form of ‘negative’ or ‘negating’ theology. A divine/infinite subject, to be such, must remain beyond comprehension. The result is a ‘before God as if without God’ spirituality/theology.
Proposition: All ‘God’ language is anthropo-, socio-, cosmomorphic (a Berdyaev-type analysis). Is there an idea or comment about ‘God’ that is not? that escapes these limits? But would not such an idea or comment then be incomprehensible to a human being? If there is no such idea or comment that is comprehensible, then two conclusions follow. (1) All comments and claimed experience regarding “knowing God” or “having a personal relationship with Jesus” or . . . are anthropo-, socio-, cosmomorphic statements. Is disregard for this limitation on ‘God’ language another form of ‘religious’ idolatry? (2) An alternative is to be iconoclastic toward all such language, a form of ‘negative’ or ‘negating’ theology. A divine/infinite subject, to be such, must remain beyond comprehension. The result is a ‘before God as if without God’ spirituality/theology.
