Second, but you will tell me that Rahner did bring God into the picture. (You must take off that mask, Vader, and recover your native wit and the hue of genuine resolution.) Note that Rahner did not bring God into the picture. He keeps God out of the picture. That is the point. But to return to my second criticism: God has essentially been identified with “being as such”, despite any hoarse protest from the early Rahner, which the mature Rahner was able to tame, consistent with his feeble grasp on the reigns of “concepts”. God has essentially become “being as such”. And recall how Rahner thinks we contact “being as such”. Not by ever contacting it! Rather, by approaching it. Recall that “being as such” is not the sum of actual entities. Rather, it is what could be. And if it is defined with respect to the dynamism of our mind beyond anything we have actually achieved, then being as such is defined in terms of potency. That is, being as such is not an actuality. It is a potency. Just as “infinity” considered arithmetically is the endlessness of a process of addition (etc) but not any actual entity of mathematics, so too “being as such” is not any actual thing. Rather, “it” is what corresponds to the infinite potential of the mind! Hence, God too has gone the way of all flesh. Of course, Rahner would never have wanted this. But just such a trajectory is the course of his thought.