|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |