An interesting point about man's relation to the Divine life I met reading Zizek's The Fragile Absolute:
Schelling's problem is not 'What does God mean in our--human--eyes? Does He still mean anything? Is it possible to account for human history without any reference to God? Is God just a projection of human fantasies?, but the opposite one: 'What does man mean in the eyes of God?'...his problem is: What role does the emergence of man play in the Divine life? Why--in order to resolve what kind of deadlock--did God have to create man? Within this context, the criticism of 'anthromorphism' ... again misses the point: 'anthropomorphism' in the description of the Divine life is not only to be avoided; it is, rather, to be openly endorsed--not because man is 'similar' to God, but because man directly is part of the Divine life, that is, because it is only in man, in human history, that God fully realizes Himself, that He becomes an actual living God.
Is this too this-worldly? too human-centered?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment