Darren New wrote:
> 
> Yeah. Pretty much any absolute in this field leads to logical 
> contradictions.

I'm not sure it's so much contradictions in this particular case as it 
is the generally difficulty linguistically describing (or even 
comprehending) something that's supposed to be infinite in the sense 
that God is.  Overall though, yeah, I agree that it's generally pretty 
difficult to precisely define something like that without causing some 
logical problem or another.

I think the same principal is actually true of physics as well (for 
instance as it applies to the origin of the universe), although in that 
case there's the advantage of having a more or less well-defined way of 
definitively detecting such contradictions, which probably makes them 
easier to remove.


>> On a related issue, I wonder just how common that particular 
>> interpretation of "made in God's image" is. 
> 
> I would think it's actually pretty common. Depictions of God, Jesus, 
> Angels, etc all wind up being human-like. Certainly in the religions 
> where the gods have dog-heads or something it gets mentioned often 
> enough you'd think you'd notice.
> 

It's mostly that I've never the description be so, well, anatomical.  I 
mean, how many people would really argue that God has a functioning 
digestive tract?  It's possible people would I suppose, but I've rarely 
even heard the view the human similarity to God was physical at all, let 
alone that it extended to the function and structure of individual organs.

Post a reply to this message