A serious question: Who is "him"?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
So, are you content to accept that Jesus is God the Father's son only in an analogous sense?

Is it possible for "God the Father" to have a son in anything but an analogous sense?

Originally posted by echecero
Is it possible for "God the Father" to have a son in anything but an analogous sense?

I don't know, but I think that LH would say that, yes, Jesus really is the son of God.

Suppose Jesus wasn't really the son of God. In that case, who was his real father?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Then why not just pick a new univocal term to denote the analogical property? Why insist on overloading terms that already have univocal meanings?

Three reasons:

1. Economy - human intelligence is sophisticated enough to distinguish terms that are used univocally, equivocally and analogically. With the term 'father', for instance, common usage has two distinct meanings (biological vs. legal). Why create a new term that will need to be analogically explained in terms of normal fatherhood anyway?

2. Experience - the concept of Christ's Divine Son-ship is not something that can be captured completely in human experience; so the nearest analogical relationship will have to do.

3. Beauty and depth - Much of the beauty of language and literature would be lost if we used terms purely univocally. Further, analogies often reveal a depth of meaning that cannot be captured in univocal terms.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Three reasons:

1. Economy - human intelligence is sophisticated enough to distinguish terms that are used univocally, equivocally and analogically. With the term 'father', for instance, common usage has two distinct meanings (biological vs. legal). Why create a new term that will need to be analogically explained in terms of normal fatherhood any ...[text shortened]... y. Further, analogies often reveal a depth of meaning that cannot be captured in univocal terms.

Unfortunately, analogies often have the adverse effect of clouding or confusing. They send a dirty signal about the author's intention. Thus the receiver may take something different from the analogy than the author intended.

Now if they can express the idea with terms that are univocal (or in some cases even equivocal), then the author and receiver can confirm that the author's intention and the receiver's interpretation are equivalent. In this case, however, other than for aesthetic reasons, it's not clear why the author should not have first employed these univocal terms to begin with.

If they cannot express the idea with terms that are either univocal or equivocal, then the receiver can only send an analogy back to the author. This is once again a dirty signal, and so the first author is left with a similar predicament to the one the first receiver experienced.

Originally posted by telerion
Unfortunately, analogies often have the adverse effect of clouding or confusing. They send a dirty signal about the author's intention. Thus the receiver may take something different from the analogy than the author intended.

Now if they can express the idea with terms that are univocal (or in some cases even equivocal), then the author and receiver c ...[text shortened]... o the first author is left with a similar predicament to the one the first receiver experienced.

Using these "dirty signals" allows communication to extend beyond the concrete.
Without using analogy and metaphor, how can anyone ever understand concepts such as love, beauty, valor, and purity?
Truly, an analogy absent any context or clarification or further discussion does little to further communication; however, analogy help set the foundation for further understanding.
Imagine explaining an atom to someone without using the common model (physical analogy) of spheres clumped together with a cloud surrounding them (or the more outdated model of a "miniature solar system"😉.

Originally posted by echecero
Using these "dirty signals" allows communication to extend beyond the concrete.
Without using analogy and metaphor, how can anyone ever understand concepts such as love, beauty, valor, and purity?
Truly, an analogy absent any context or clarification or further discussion does little to further communication; however, analogy help set the foundation for ...[text shortened]... ther with a cloud surrounding them (or the more outdated model of a "miniature solar system"😉.

I agree to some extent with what you are saying. I am just pointing out one of the major weaknesses with analogy.

The example you give of an atom actually gets back to my (2) where univocal or equivocal terms are impotent. While analogy will serve, it also runs the risk of confusing the situation even more. In fact, an added benefit of the other methods is that when one doesn't understand, they know that they do not. If you tell me "a dexsnk zidoss off of a konn," I'll immediately know that I do not understand your message. However if you tell me "it's like a toothpick in that it is straight but also handy," I may think that you mean something completely different than you really do. Given that we share no common univocal terms for confirming our ideas, I can only signal back to you in analogy as well. "Oh so it's like a pencil in that it's strict but also versatile?"

We can never be sure that we are on the same page.

If you know what I mean 😉