Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Campion
I think that especially in thinking and trying to talk about the "nature" of God or of the Incarnate Son of God we have to do some good preliminary work on how reason and language work and fail to work in talking about God.

My glib approach is that nothing we say about God is true, but some things are even further from the mark than others. Also, God being the only one of his kind and a priori different from everything and relationship which language deals with, all the things we same a bout him should be preceeding by "sorta like".

For example. God isn't even "one" the same way other things are one. When we attribute "oneness" to God, we Tgrinitarians find ourselve simmediately in trouble and have to say, well He's Three, also, But He's not three the way other triads (for example, the tri-lateral commission, Sahdrach, Meshach, AND Abednego, Tinkers, Evers Chance)are three and He's not one the way any thing we ever thoguht of as one is. (remember the campaign slogan, "Nixon's the One" - to which I always wnated to say, "He IS? You sure coulda fooled me!") He's just "sorta like".

And if I then say that something else is a better "sorta like" I end up in REAL trouble.

That's how I do it, anyway.

29 posted on 11/09/2006 3:40:58 PM PST by Mad Dawg (Now we are all Massoud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]


To: Mad Dawg
That's how I do it, anyway.

Your entire post was a mystery. In any language that God has given us one means one and three means three.

31 posted on 11/09/2006 5:01:23 PM PST by Invincibly Ignorant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson