[Alamo-Girl]

I believe that from God’s perspective, there’s no even seeming contradiction. But our finiteness and the constraints of our finite languages limited the fullness of our understanding of God’s perspective.

Indeed, either/or (Aristotle's Law of the Excluded Middle) does not apply to God. If one presupposes that it does, he ends up anthropomorphizing God.

[unspun]

It’s pleasant to consider that a thread in FR about the advent of our Savior ;-) lasts longer than one about the unfortunate demise of Anna Nicole Smith. :-(

[Quix]

OF COURSE. Well put.

. . . though in terms of anthromophizing . . .

God kind of did that A BIT, to begin with, when He made us in His image—whatever that means.

But certainly there are an infinite number of areas and aspects where the anthromorphizing just doesn’t apply.

[topcat54]

So, you're saying that God is not bound by contraditions (He can be both truthful and a liar at the same time) and to think otherwise is anthropomorphizing.

Curious.

[adiaireton8]

Indeed, either/or (Aristotle's Law of the Excluded Middle) does not apply to God. If one presupposes that it does, he ends up anthropomorphizing God.

Woah. So God is both good and evil? True and false? Light and dark?

If you claim that the LEM does not apply to God, you destroy the possibility of any meaningful claim about God, because then the contrary of any claim (about God) is not ruled out. In other words, if you say "God is good", while denying that the LEM applies to God, then you are allowing that it could also be true that God is evil, when then makes hash of your claim that God is good, sincen to claim that God is good *means* (by implication) that God is not evil.

-A8