چکیده:
Vincent Brommer believes that speaking of the divine is only possible through the use of analogies, metaphors, and mental models. Each of these metaphors reflects aspects of the formless divine reality and must be interpreted and understood together in light of one another. Each of these metaphors has a range of semantic implications that, while reflecting manifestations of the truth of the divine, conceal other aspects of this truth. The main task of systematic theology is to highlight one of these metaphors as a theological macro-model and to reinterpret other metaphors under it. To find this macro-model, Brommer introduces four criteria: 'consistency with tradition', 'comprehensive coherence', 'adequacy for the requirements of the age', and 'personal credibility'. After discovering the aforementioned macro-model, the theologian places it at the center of theorizing and imaging about God. According to Brommer, the use of the 'personal God' macro-model has more consistency with the sacred text compared to other mental models.
خلاصه ماشینی:
He considers religious language and tradition to be saturated with metaphors referring to the divine and fundamentally views the language of religion, especially in propositions referring to the divine, as a metaphorical language; therefore, he believes that the task of theology is to examine those metaphors, investigate and identify their conceptual implications, bestow a meaningful, coherent, and geometric order upon them, and finally, using methodological criteria, elevate one of them as a theological "macro-model" and re-interpret the other metaphors under that macro-model.
5. The necessity of achieving a "theological macro-pattern" as the foundation of theology As we said, according to Bromer, we are compelled to resort to metaphors and mental patterns to speak of God and express His way of relating to humans and the world.
Therefore, theologians who are seeking to devise a systematic and organized theology must always keep two points in mind to avoid falling into the trap of theological one-sidedness: First, they must never forget that what they have chosen as a macro-pattern is, in fact, a metaphor that still carries the whisper of "and it is not so," and therefore does not fully and accurately reflect the reality of the divine matter and the manner of connection with Him. For this reason, instead of ignoring the many diverse models and metaphors that exist in religious tradition, they must see whether a rational (and not artificial) interpretation can be derived from them that, instead of negating and contradicting their selected macro-pattern, serves to strengthen it or not.
(
, 
, 
)
