« Liberal Arts and Poverty! | Main | New Years resolutions and tomorrow. »

Comments

Scott Jones

What was the response to that?

ryan

Scott-
If I rememeber correctly, it was something along the lines of "Fuck you, you heathen!"

Of course, it was phrased more like, "He sounds like a liberal, we should pray for him."

Adam

Ryan is mostly right. There were about 5 articles the next week responding. All of them proceeded to give me multiple word pictures for what the trinity was. Most of them were condescending and all of them were written by under classmen. Kind of what I expected, but dissappointing all the same.

Law Bob Esq.

I think both the author and the underclassmen are making the same fundamental mistake. If one is going to assert that God is omniscient, omnipotent, infinite... one must assert that God is pretty darned big & complicated. The author attempts to define God through logic, the underclassment attempt to explain god through "word pictures." Both parties assume that it is possible to cram an eternal transcendant God into a space the size of a human brain.* Is it reasonable to try to define the infinite (god) using finite means (my brain)?

*To paraphrase a friend of mine.

mc

Law Bob gets it right. Christopher Hitchens takes a rational approach to Christianity and gets hung up in this same area--generally speaking. Rational reasoning and logic will take you a long way down the road that is Christianity; however, that road suddenly ends at a 10,000 foot cliff. Reason stops, pathos retreats, faith keeps driving.

Adam

Law Bob and MC

Being the author, I feel it mildly necessary to defend myself. I wrote the article more to get a reaction from the students. I was trying to get them to think about the complexities of asserting that God is three in one. It is possible that I may be equivocating on "is", but I'm also pretty sure that whatever God is (I agree that God exceeds any category we could come up with) that God doesn't violate logical principles.

The comments to this entry are closed.