The idea of "limiting" God
I would like to just spend a few moments explaining what I think amounts to a fallacy: the idea that by talking about God in certain concrete terms (i.e, that he has a name, "Krsna", that he engages in certain pastimes, has a body, and so on) I must, therefore, limit God in terms of his comprehensive Being.
How do I do that? God still possesses all opulences, has all auspicious and omni-maximal qualities, is infinite, surpasses all understanding, and so forth. The fact that he has certain attributes which are comprehensible is no reason to say God, taken in his entirety, must be limited. And yet this is what I keep hearing (mostly from Catholics, but also Advaitins, some Buddhists who refuse to talk about the "Absolute" in anything but negative terms).
I am not interested in theists who uphold the saguna aspect of God as jumping on the bandwagon here with me. I am interested in a genuine talk of whether or not this counts as a fallacy, as to me it does.
Hare Krsna
How can I put this in a sentence? Try next time.
Bookmarks