Negative Theology

[URBILD]

That's very Western. Negative theology, otoh, mostly comes out of (or at least back from) the East, doesnt it? (I mean, the RCC silenced Meister Ekhart for saying apophatic type stuff.)

You have the same problem in the East. Pseudo-Dionysius left negative theology unreconciled with Biblical language about God.

[mdsimpson92]

That's very Western. Negative theology, otoh, mostly comes out of (or at least back from) the East, doesnt it? (I mean, the RCC silenced Meister Ekhart for saying apophatic type stuff.)

You have the same problem in the East. Pseudo-Dionysius left negative theology unreconciled with Biblical language about God.

i believe that Plotinus himself generally believed that THE ONE is not an object of knowledge or perception. Perhaps in a sense noumenal or at least matching with God not "existing" per say.

Given that Pseudo Dionysus took much influence from Plotinus, this could be worth noting.

[met]

That's very Western. Negative theology, otoh, mostly comes out of (or at least back from) the East, doesnt it? (I mean, the RCC silenced Meister Ekhart for saying apophatic type stuff.)

You have the same problem in the East. Pseudo-Dionysius left negative theology unreconciled with Biblical language about God.

.... his notorious final naming of God as "Incomprehensible?" i spose that's true.

(I can see how u feel that neo-classical theism resolves this issue? Yeah, quite interesting ... )

[met]

BUT!!!! - The HS of course just avoids all that - all that philosophy stuff. Just tells the stories. Except here and there, implicitly , symbolically, that kind of thing is still hinted at - like, eg, when a glimpse of God's "hind parts" makes Moses's hair go all white. Or Isaiah's outcry.... "I am a man with unclean lips!" ... etc etc.

So how CONTRADICTORY are those two depictions of God, ultimately? Are they really irreconcilable?

[mdsimpson92]

BUT!!!! - The HS of course just avoids all that - all that philosophy stuff. Just tells the stories. Except here and there, implicitly , symbolically, that kind of thing is still hinted at - like, eg, when a glimpse of God's "hind parts" makes Moses's hair go all white. Or Isaiah's outcry.... "I am a man with unclean lips!" ... etc etc.

So how CONTRADICTORY are those two depictions of God, ultimately? Are they really irreconcilable?

Perhaps not, granted there is process theism's answer (and I have not totally rejected it even though I am still Tillichian) However, I remember somewhere in "Courage to be" where Tillich references those as the personal interactions with God. Even though God is ultimately transpersonal. Reminds me of the Buddhist "not a mind, but not a non-mind."

[Metacrock]

But Tillich doesn't mean "impersonal" by saying "transpersonal." He just means that it's beyond what we understand as personal. That doesn't mean God can't condecend to our level.

[mdsimpson92]

I don't want to imply that. Sorry I shouldn't have brought up Buber without reading his criticism.