I would say they were ignorant of His character... But as Paul pointed out they were ignorant of His bring the Creator.
I settled that matter in my mind several years ago... Christ is the Son of God... And inherited all the natural qualities, and divine attributes of His Father, set them aside to become a man and live as a man in faith and dependance on His Father and His God.
I hear what you're saying, and agree with the sentiment. The problem is that language is incapable of presenting the truth. All we can do is refer to what simply doesn't exist. God isn't something that can be possessed. It's only a matter of speaking, and we can only articulate ideas, concepts, thoughts, etc. These are nothing more than symbols, and even when we give meaning to these symbols, the symbols are being substituted for meaning, but the meaning isn't what it refers to. It is only attributed to what it refers to.
So we talk of rocks, but these ideas of rocks are not actually rocks. We are simply identifying rocks with identifiable characteristics. The problems are manifold. You may identify a rock by size while others identify a rock by substance. Others may identify rocks by their ability to withstand crushing forces. They will say that a clod of dirt is not a rock.
The problem is impossible to resolve when there is no referent. When dealing with God, the only referent is "the word" itself. This is what John is spotlighting in his introduction. It is the only way to begin anything, even creation.
All of creation is potentially in God. It is omni-potential, but it cannot begin to exist in God because God is the origin of existence. Therefore all of creation must come from God, and through existence or being.
Again, we can attribute existence or being TO God, but attributes are not identical to what they are attributed to. I may be tall, but I am not tallness. I may have all sorts of things attributed to me, but I am not any of those things themselves. It is the same with things like existence or being which is attributed to God, but quite blatantly isn't God.
The atheist understands this, which is to say that he understands that God cannot be understood. Theists are beginning to understand this fact as well. It reveals that we don't have to have the same exact definition of God anymore. It reveals that we need to look at the defining characteristics of those who are actually followers and that is by looking at the fruit produced.
So instead of claiming we're looking at an apple tree, we look at the fruit produced. More importantly, we do the same thing Paul did by pointing to a pagan deity; we relate to the image of Christ in our fellow man regardless of their beliefs or lack thereof. We need atheist pastors, not only to broaden our horizons as believers, but to talk to fellow atheists on their own level. Using terminology they can understand and relate to.
When we see our fellow man is lost, giving them directions in a foreign language will be of no use to them whatsoever. After Pentecost, we see the church speaking to people not only in their native tongues, but in the exact same dialect, and this is no less necessary when it comes to the atheist, agnostic, skeptic, homosexual, transgendered, etc.
Doctrines, dogmas, laws, can never save them so they cannot be used effectively to draw anyone to Christ. The gospel message is what draws people to Christ regardless of where these people are when they first hear it.
We don't have to forget where we came from, especially when dealing with people who are in the same place now. We can talk to them on their level, or as Paul says, "I speak as a man". He speaks in human terms that are understandable to fallen humanity.
This is what is so tragic about modern day Christianity. Christians don't want to speak to fallen humanity from anywhere other than a position of solipsistic superiority.
