Watch The ::God Is Imaginary Videos On YouTube ::
Basically, we run into a similar problem to trying to explain quantum physics to a child (or anyone, for that matter.) We are trying to understand an infinite God who transcends the material and rational with a brain that is limited to the material and rational, and we are trying to describe concepts in discrete language that aren't really fully describable. Much like trying to tighten a screw with a hammer, the tools we have can only do part of the job, and really can't do it all that efficiently.So we do the best we can. Much as with the child, we use analogies and approach the concepts from multiple different angles and tell stories connected by meandering narration until we shine enough light from enough angles that we can get the general concept passed along. From our point of view, the set of what is understandable is quite a bit larger than the set of what is easily describable, so our major hurdle is using our limited language to get a person to the first spark of understanding, which they can use as a launching point to continue further.At best, our limitations of language in the light of sacred mysteries means that there really aren't any discrete answers. And if we give them, we've answered the question but not really granted the understanding. I will frequently answer a yes/no question with a "yes" or "no," but only with the full understanding that the "yes" or "no" stands in place of a very long explanation, which means that I am knowingly allowing the questioner to obtain only a small fraction of understanding in the interest of simplicity. Sometimes I go with "yes and no," but that answer tends to increase complexity and so it must be used judiciously.