SG, the thing I think you miss out on here is that the catechism isn't about making God irrefutable, it's about describing something that people already believe in. These sort of notions about God have existed for time and memorial. They are not some sort of attempt to dodge the question. If that were the case, then the people who first came up with these "weird" exaplanations must have anticipated the questions that nobody had asked. Some things just can't be reduced. They aren't any less real because of that.
It might not make sense to you, but it tends to make sense to those who already believe in a God. That is where communication breaks down. Those kind of descriptions aren't made for you, they're made for people who already believe. Like I said, imagine trying to describe the something like taste to somebody who has no sense of taste. It would sound like gibberish to them. It doesn't mean that you don't experience it and that you can't communicate about taste with other people who have the experience of tasting an orange, a lemon sugar or a steak. Imagine trying to describe the taste of something in terms of its colour. That's what it is like trying to define God in words.
When we speak of God as loving, thinking, acting, what we really mean is that God is doing something to which the closest comparision we have is loving, thinking or acting.
Either way, there's plenty of articles out there about this. Start a thread elsewhere if you're interested, since this really isn't the place for this conversation.
Nick, I'll get to around to your comments later. Needless to say that what you've got a weird understanding of what it is to be a saint. Oh and you'll find parts of the bible that describe in both male and female terms. Mostly male though.
Tweet This Topic
