I'm saying that defining God even in the most generous, liberally open hearted and inclusive manner will only be disappointing from the vantage point of 'truth' - you'll never define that one to even your own satisfaction - the words, if you believe in God, aren't going to 'capture' the essence of 'God'liness.
Kaufman made the same point in Beyond Reductionism arguing that reductionism is wonderful, "but not enough".
Language to describe God is reductionism. I think if Kaufman attempts definitions of God he'll fall into his own trap where he cautions readers to beware reductionism because it is 'not enough'.
Besides, it's also true that as soon as you define something, that something can lose some of it's beauty. If you doubt me try describing Michaelangelo's David in words - it doesn't do justice to the piece. Similarly, the definition of God given by Kaufman feels cold and doesn't feel like God to me.
So what can I tell you? Honestly I don't feel it. I think it's a fine attempt but no better or worse than tons of others. I hear ideas like this and they're fine but they don't often replace my own ideas of God, which are way less easily defined and way more emotionally laden and bound to my body.
If you don't feel that's worth talking about, ok, fine, maybe it's just me that finds defining God to be impossible and that impossibility is interesting. It's your thread. I don't wish to hijack the thread.
Edited by hogan_dawg (08/15/08 12:43 PM)
I can say unequivocally that the lie of "To truly heal you must first forgive" has derailed more victims than the abusers themselves.
Andrew Vachs, 2003