Doctrinal divisions are one of the many things that make religious debate so entertaining.
As for 'the doctrine of Christ', Drich is correct - it isn't simple. But the complexity isn't because it takes up four rather short books. The complexity is the result of these books being pieced together over decades from different traditions by people with different agendas and outlooks. It's rather like the 'Rashomon' of theological instruction.
I suspect it (the use of platitudes) boils down to people desperately wanting to believe something that - on the face of it - is utterly ludicrous. The 'need to believe' is so strong among the religiously-minded that resorting to empty platitudes becomes virtually de rigueur as a replacement for explanations that actually make sense.
Boru
As for 'the doctrine of Christ', Drich is correct - it isn't simple. But the complexity isn't because it takes up four rather short books. The complexity is the result of these books being pieced together over decades from different traditions by people with different agendas and outlooks. It's rather like the 'Rashomon' of theological instruction.
I suspect it (the use of platitudes) boils down to people desperately wanting to believe something that - on the face of it - is utterly ludicrous. The 'need to believe' is so strong among the religiously-minded that resorting to empty platitudes becomes virtually de rigueur as a replacement for explanations that actually make sense.
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
