<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Krisis &#38; Praxis &#187; Philosophy of Religion</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.krisispraxis.com/archives/category/philosophy-of-religion/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.krisispraxis.com</link>
	<description>To Understand Truth and to Attain the True</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Dec 2011 04:56:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Analogy in Theological Language (Part 3): A Model of the Trinity</title>
		<link>http://www.krisispraxis.com/archives/2006/07/analogy-in-theological-language-part-3-a-model-of-the-trinity/</link>
		<comments>http://www.krisispraxis.com/archives/2006/07/analogy-in-theological-language-part-3-a-model-of-the-trinity/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Jul 2006 07:54:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kam Weng</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Concept of God]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy of Religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Theological Issues]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://krisispraxis.ath.cx/archives/2006/07/analogy-in-theological-language-part-3-a-model-of-the-trinity/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Greco-Roman mythology there is said to stand guarding the gates of Hades a three-headed dog named Cerberus. We may suppose that Cerberus has three brains and therefore three distinct states of consciousness of whatever it is like to be a dog. Therefore, Cerberus, while a sentient being, does not have a unified consciousness. He has three consciousness.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.krisispraxis.com/archives/2006/07/analogy-in-theological-language-part-3-a-model-of-the-trinity/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Analogy in Theological Language (Part 2)</title>
		<link>http://www.krisispraxis.com/archives/2006/07/analogy-in-theological-language-part-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.krisispraxis.com/archives/2006/07/analogy-in-theological-language-part-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Jul 2006 17:21:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kam Weng</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Concept of God]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy of Religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Theological Issues]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://krisispraxis.ath.cx/archives/2006/07/analogy-in-theological-language-part-2/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Let us then investigate how analogical language plays a prominent role in Christian theology.

First, some words about the language of God talk: Talk about God can be univocal, equivocal or analogical.

Univocal language – When a term is used univocally it is being given exactly the same meaning in two different contexts, e.g., we would say of both a dog and a cat that each is a mammal.

Equivocal language – This is to give a word two completely different and unrelated meanings. It is purely accidental that the word sounds the same in each case. Thus the word ‘bat’ can be used of an object in the game of cricket and of a flying animal.

Any attempt at God-talk faces the following dilemma. We must use language derived from everyday experience. If we refer to God without qualifications, we make God part of the finite world. If we dichotomize human language from a God who is totally other, we empty our God-talk of meaning. As Frederick Ferré expresses it, ‘If univocal, then language falls into anthropomorphism and cannot be about God: if equivocal, then language bereft of its meaning leads to agnosticism and cannot for us be about God’ (p.105).]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.krisispraxis.com/archives/2006/07/analogy-in-theological-language-part-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Analogical Language in Theology (Part 1)</title>
		<link>http://www.krisispraxis.com/archives/2006/07/analogical-language-in-theology-part-1/</link>
		<comments>http://www.krisispraxis.com/archives/2006/07/analogical-language-in-theology-part-1/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Jul 2006 16:38:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kam Weng</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Concept of God]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy of Religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Theological Issues]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://krisispraxis.ath.cx/archives/2006/07/analogical-language-in-theology-part-1/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Islam is well known for its resolute rejection of any attempt to represent God with images. It is therefore a surprise when one comes across passages in the Quran describing God in human terms. Thus, Allah has a face, hands and eyes:]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.krisispraxis.com/archives/2006/07/analogical-language-in-theology-part-1/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

