Your Status: Logged out Log in

"Religious language has no meaning." Discuss.  

Member rating: 8 out of 10 stars (1 vote) | Words: | Submitted: Thu Jan 13 2005

Page Preview
Preview
Previous 1 of 2 Next

On the left is an image preview of every page of this document, and below are the first 150 words with formatting removed:

Pollyanna Jones 13RH "Religious language has no meaning." Discuss. According to Brown "devine truth has to be refracted and expressed in terms of human words and finite images" and in many ways this is what religious language is seeking to do. One of the key things about religious language is even though it is based on experience it is always going to be equivocal as it is very difficult to understand God. It is often argued that this causes religious language to be meaningless. Karl Bath attempted to overcome this problem by exploring the ides of "via negativa". According to mystics due to lack of understanding, we cannot say what God is by but we can say what he is not i.e. God is not evil. Maimonidies expanded this suggesting there is "no necessity to use positive attributes of God". Even though this idea could not be proved incorrect, it lacks meaning, not...

Get instant access



  • Instant, unlimited access to our documents in full
  • Swap your work for free access, or pay £4.99
  • To see the full version of this document and 150,044 others
Register Now