<html>
Hi Michael:<br><br>
A week before the celebration of the Incarnation is a pretty good time to
debate the logic of this central Christian doctrine. <br><br>
For someone who appears to be committed to the practice of "analytic
philosophy," where logical precision is the <i>sine qua non</i>,
your extremely fuzzy attempt to resolve the issue is very disappointing
indeed. Of course you can resolve the paradox by redefining deity
and humanity, but, if we are doing philosophical theology, that's just
plain cheating.<br><br>
Before you redefined "God," I would have agreed with you that
Calvin was not God, but now we simply can't know anything at all. If, as
you say, the "categories of God and man had in many ways been blown
apart" by the Incarnation, then all categories are destroyed and any
philosophical discussion is impossible. <br><br>
One of the assumptions of the philosophy of religion is that if God
exists, then God did not create human reason in vain. Fooling
around with logic then becomes a form of blasphemy.<br><br>
By the way, it is good that you mentioned Calvin, because I'm sure he
would not have agreed with your arbitrary redefinitions as a way to
resolve divine mysteries.<br><br>
Finally, this is not the first time I've detected the French
postmodernist "all signifiers are arbitrary" business at Christ
Church. Doug Jones played this card in his debate with me on the
Trinity. Look at Jones' third paragraph in his Second Response at
<a href="http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/trinitydebate.htm" eudora="autourl">www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/trinitydebate.htm</a>.
Christ Church theologians and Jacques Derrida make very odd
bedfellows!<br><br>
Michael, this does not bode well for your solving the problem of
evil.<br><br>
Thanks for the dialogue,<br><br>
Nick Gier<br>
</html>